Case 2602348/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs B Belli v Laceby Manor Resort Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 2602348/2022
- Decision date
- 29 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkinson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs B Belli
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered only the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint in this judgment. It found that Mrs B Belli had been employed by Laceby Manor Resort Limited for less than two years, so she did not satisfy the two-year service requirement in section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for an unfair dismissal claim.
The tribunal said the claimant had been given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but she did not give an acceptable reason. On that basis, the unfair dismissal complaint was struck out.
The judgment expressly states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision. It also notes, in particular, that the allegation that the dismissal was itself an act of discrimination would continue to be heard and determined in the normal way.
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 therefore was not entitled to bring the claim under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant did not give an acceptable reason why the complaint 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.