Case 2601199/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Davies v The Hain Daniels Group Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2601199/2021
- Decision date
- 10 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Swann Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Davies
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss C Davies brought a single complaint of unfair dismissal against Hain Daniels Group. The tribunal recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service before an unfair dismissal complaint can be brought.
The tribunal found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years. On that basis, it concluded that she was not entitled to bring the proceedings. The judgment also records that the claimant was given the opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but did not give an acceptable reason.
The claim was therefore struck out. No monetary remedy was awarded or addressed in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant had less than two years' service, so she was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 ERA 1996. The claim was struck out after she failed to give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why it should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.