Case 3200762/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Kutsoati v St Paul’s Way Medical Centre — 2024
- Case reference
- 3200762/2024
- Decision date
- 16 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Elliott On
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Kutsoati
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant had just under three weeks' service with the respondent, from 11 to 29 December 2023. The tribunal had warned that the unfair dismissal claim appeared to lack the qualifying service required under section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996, and the claimant gave written and oral reasons why she said the claim should proceed.
The tribunal considered the claimant's reliance on health and safety matters and section 100 Employment Rights Act 1996. It found that the matters she set out did not disclose grounds within section 100 or any other category of automatically unfair dismissal.
The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim for lack of qualifying service. It noted that the claimant contended her dismissal was an act of direct race discrimination, but that discrimination issue was not determined in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal claim was struck out because the claimant lacked qualifying service and did not disclose grounds for automatically unfair dismissal. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 100 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.