Case 2601783/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs. K Englefield v To Die For — 2021
- Case reference
- 2601783/2021
- Decision date
- 21 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Victoria Butler
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs. K Englefield
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs. K Englefield brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against To Die For. Employment Judge Victoria Butler held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
Because the claimant was below the qualifying service threshold, the tribunal found that she was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. The claimant was given the opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but she did not provide an acceptable reason. The judgment therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this judgment.
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 had less than two years' service and was therefore not entitled to bring such a complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but did not give an acceptable reason. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 108 of the 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.