Case 2600528/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs B Belkadi v Rachael Livingston Derbyshire Housing Trust CIC Pace Engagement Centre — 2019

Case reference: 2600528/2019
Decision date: 20 June 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Heap Date

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mrs B Belkadi

Respondent

Rachael Livingston Derbyshire Housing Trust CIC Pace Engagement Centre

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Tribunal dealt only with a complaint of unfair dismissal. By letter dated 11 May 2019, the claimant was given the opportunity to make representations or request a hearing as to why the claim should not be struck out because she did not have sufficient service to bring an unfair dismissal claim under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

The claimant did not make representations in writing, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. On that basis, the Tribunal struck out the complaint of unfair dismissal. No monetary remedy was awarded.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The Tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because the claimant did not have sufficient service under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant was given an opportunity by letter dated 11 May 2019 to make representations or request a hearing but did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

2 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.