Case 2601802/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Chadwick v The Vault (Mansfield) Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2601802/2019
- Decision date
- 5 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Chadwick
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss A Chadwick brought an unfair dismissal complaint against The Vault (Mansfield) Ltd. The tribunal found that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service for an unfair dismissal claim, and that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
The claimant accepted that she did not have sufficient service and did not advance any reason why the complaint should not be struck out. On that basis, the tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint.
The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision, so no other claims were determined in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and therefore could not bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant accepted she had insufficient service and gave no reason why the complaint should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.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.
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.