Case 3201249/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Stepinska v Cakebox Southend Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3201249/2023
- Decision date
- 9 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lewis
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Stepinska
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Lewis struck out the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint on 9 November 2023. The tribunal recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service before a claimant can bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that Miss J Stepinska had been employed by Cakebox Southend Ltd for less than two years.
The tribunal further found that the claimant had not given an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out. On that basis, the unfair dismissal complaint was struck out. The judgment stated that the claimant's other complaint was not affected by the decision.
The reasons also note that the hearing listed for 6 December 2023 would consider whether it was reasonably practicable to bring the Working Time Regulations 1998 claim within three months of termination of employment, and if not, whether it was brought within such further period as is reasonable.
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 section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996; the claimant did not provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 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.