Case 2601241/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Knight, husband For the v Mrs A Elding T/a Flo’s Friends – Community Care & Support Services — 2018
- Case reference
- 2601241/2018
- Decision date
- 21 September 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge K Ayre Appearances
- Venue
- Boston
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Knight, husband For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the claims were presented in time and that it had jurisdiction to hear them. It also recorded that the claimant had been employed by the respondent for more than two years, giving her sufficient service to pursue an unfair dismissal claim.
The Tribunal decided that no part of the current claim could have been brought as part of previous proceedings under case number 2600196/2018, so the claim should not be struck out under Rule 37 on that ground. It also found that the claimant was entitled to rely on the original Early Conciliation Certificate, so the claim should not be struck out under Rule 37 on that ground either.
The judgment does not determine the substantive merits of the claims or make any monetary award. Reasons were given orally, with written reasons available only if requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the claimant had more than two years' service and sufficient service to pursue an unfair dismissal claim, but it does not determine the merits of that claim. | Other | — | — |
| Other | The judgment determines preliminary jurisdiction and strike-out issues for the claims before the Tribunal. The substantive claims other than unfair dismissal are not identified in the judgment text and their merits are not determined. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.