Case 2602105/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Knight v Ellen Baker/Margaret Stewart — 2018
- Case reference
- 2602105/2018
- Decision date
- 4 December 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchinson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Knight
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs A Knight brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Ellen Baker/Margaret Stewart. The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
Because the claimant did not meet the qualifying service requirement, the tribunal concluded that she was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal claim. It also recorded that she was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but did not provide an acceptable reason.
The judgment therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. It expressly states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision.
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 did not have the qualifying service required by section 108 ERA 1996. The judgment states that the claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out but gave no acceptable reason. | 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.
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.