Case 2602683/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss F Martin v W M Morrisons — 2024
- Case reference
- 2602683/2023
- Decision date
- 21 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkinson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss F Martin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss F Martin brought a claim of unfair dismissal against W M Morrisons. The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have at least two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal concluded that the claimant was not entitled to bring these proceedings. It also recorded that the claimant was given an opportunity to provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out, but did not do so.
The judgment accordingly struck out the unfair dismissal claim. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal recorded a complaint of unfair dismissal. It held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service, that the claimant had been employed for less than two years, and that she was therefore not entitled to bring the proceedings. 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- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.