Case 2600120/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Naughton v Benjamin Jimmy Masters and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 2600120/2024
- Decision date
- 2 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Clark Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss A Naughton
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the unfair dismissal complaint by Miss A Naughton against Benjamin Jimmy Masters and Masters Comms Limited. It noted that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint unless an exception applies.
The claimant had been employed for less than two years. The tribunal wrote on 24 January 2024 warning that the unfair dismissal claim would be struck out for lack of jurisdiction unless the claimant made written representations explaining why that should not happen. The claimant replied on 29 January 2024, but the tribunal found that the correspondence did not address the substance of the warning.
Because no acceptable reason was given to avoid strike out, the unfair dismissal claim was struck out. The judgment stated that the other claims were not affected and would proceed to a hearing on 7 June 2024.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and did not give an acceptable written reason in response to the tribunal's warning. The other claims were not affected by this judgment and were listed to proceed to a hearing on 7 June 2024. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.