Case 2603146/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs T Pinter v Leedale Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2603146/2019
- Decision date
- 16 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs T Pinter
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs T Pinter's complaint of unfair dismissal against Leedale Limited was struck out by Employment Judge Batten on 16 January 2020. The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
The reasons record that the claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but did not provide an acceptable reason. The judgment states that the unfair dismissal complaint was accordingly struck out. It also records that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and was therefore not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under s.108 ERA 1996; the tribunal also recorded that no acceptable reason was given, despite the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.