Case 2600950/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Swift v Greenwood Academies Trust — 2022
- Case reference
- 2600950/2022
- Decision date
- 9 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms C Swift
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with the unfair dismissal claim at a closed preliminary hearing. It found that Ms C Swift had less than two years' continuous service at the date her employment ended, so the ordinary unfair dismissal provisions in section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 were not available unless an exception to the qualifying period applied.
The claimant said the claim was based on factors that would engage the ordinary principles of fairness in section 98 ERA 1996, but the tribunal found that the claim still required two years' continuous service. It considered the exceptions to that requirement and found that none were engaged on the facts. The tribunal therefore held that it did not have jurisdiction to determine the unfair dismissal claim, and the claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the claimant had less than 2 years' continuous service at the date of termination; the tribunal found no qualifying-period exception engaged. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- two years' continuous service requirement
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.