Case 2602947/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss P Love v MPL Contact — 2023
- Case reference
- 2602947/2022
- Decision date
- 5 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkinson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss P Love
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Miss P Love’s claim for a redundancy payment. It applied section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and found that she had been employed by MPL Contact for less than two years, so she did not have the statutory right to a redundancy payment. The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out, but no acceptable reason was provided.
The tribunal also struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. It relied on section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and found that the claimant had less than two years’ service, so she was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. She was again given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but did not provide an acceptable reason. With no remaining complaints, the case ended and all future hearings were cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Struck out because the claimant had been employed for less than two years, so section 155 ERA 1996 meant there was no entitlement to a redundancy payment. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant had been employed for less than two years, so section 108 ERA 1996 meant she was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.155 ERA 1996
- 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.