Case 2601061/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss T Fung v The Real Macaw (Leicestershire) Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2601061/2020
- Decision date
- 25 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Blackwell
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss T Fung
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing in Miss T Fung's claim against The Real Macaw (Leicestershire) Limited. The tribunal's stated purpose was to determine whether Ms Fung had sufficient continuity of service under section 108(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to bring an unfair dismissal claim.
Ms Fung did not attend the hearing. The respondent was represented by Mr J Gunnion of Croner. The tribunal recorded that on 9 September 2020 Ms Fung had written saying she had spoken to a solicitor from the respondent and had been told the case was only for unfair dismissal and that there was no disability dispute, adding that she felt she had been dismissed because she was on the sick.
Judge Jeram had directed on 10 September that the matter should be discussed at the preliminary hearing listed for 14 September 2020. When Ms Fung did not appear at the remote hearing, the tribunal telephoned her and she said she had attended the Nottingham Tribunal Centre in person, although there was no evidence of her signing into the building.
No substantive issue was determined at that hearing. The tribunal therefore adjourned the preliminary hearing to a date to be fixed, and recorded that it could be heard before any Employment Judge.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | No substantive finding on liability or remedy was made. The preliminary hearing was adjourned because the claimant did not attend. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.108(1) ERA 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.