Case 2602475/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Lowen v Hunters Lodge — 2022
- Case reference
- 2602475/2022
- Decision date
- 17 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Broughton Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss E Lowen
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Miss E Lowen, brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Hunters Lodge. The tribunal recorded that s.108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have at least two years' service to present an unfair dismissal complaint.
The claimant did not provide the dates of her employment in the claim form and did not supply them after being ordered to do so by email on 4 November 2022. She also did not respond to a warning letter asking her to explain by 17 November 2022 why the claim should not be struck out on the basis that she did not appear to have the required service.
The tribunal found that the claimant had failed to give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out. The unfair dismissal complaint was therefore struck out. The judgment 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 | Struck out because the claimant did not provide dates of employment or an acceptable reason why the complaint should proceed, despite being asked for the information and warned that the claim might be struck out under s.108 ERA 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.108 ERA 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.