Case 2603896/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Staniforth v Little Angels Prams — 2021
- Case reference
- 2603896/2020
- Decision date
- 23 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Swann
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Staniforth
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered a complaint of unfair dismissal brought by Miss S Staniforth against Little Angels Prams. By letter dated 29/10/2020, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the unfair dismissal claim should not be struck out because she lacked sufficient qualifying service under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The claimant did not make written representations, did not make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. On that basis, Employment Judge Swann struck out the unfair dismissal complaint under rule 37.
The judgment records that the claimant’s remaining claim or claims remained listed for hearing on 21-23 March 2021. No monetary award was made in this strike-out judgment.
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 lacked sufficient qualifying service to bring the claim under the Employment Rights Act 1996, and did not make written representations or request a hearing after the strike-out warning letter dated 29/10/2020. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37
- sufficient qualifying service under the 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.