Case 3200002/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms R Bosakwa v Elizabeth Cardy — 2023
- Case reference
- 3200002/2023
- Decision date
- 28 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Beyzade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms R Bosakwa
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the claimant’s complaints of unfair dismissal and non-payment of a redundancy payment. It found that section 108 and section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 require at least two years’ service to bring those complaints, and found that Ms Bosakwa had been employed by the respondent for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal held that she was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal and redundancy payment complaints. It also recorded that she had failed to give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why those complaints should not be struck out.
Accordingly, the complaints of unfair dismissal and failure to pay a redundancy payment were struck out. The judgment states that the claimant’s other complaints were not affected and would proceed to hearing on 01 August 2023.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings 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 sections 108 and 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and was therefore not entitled to bring a redundancy payment complaint under sections 108 and 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996 two-year service requirement
- s.155 Employment Rights Act 1996 two-year service requirement
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.