Case 3201622/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Oliver v Greenwoods Hotel Management Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 3201622/2020
- Decision date
- 25 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gardiner
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss M Oliver
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss M Oliver complained of unfair dismissal against Greenwoods Hotel Management Ltd. The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires not less than two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
Because the claimant did not satisfy the qualifying service requirement, the tribunal held that she was not entitled to bring the complaint. It also found that she had failed to give an acceptable reason, despite having the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out. The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore struck out. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected and could be considered at a preliminary hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant had been employed for less than two years, so she was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.