Case 3201890/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs D Bailey-Smith v PPP Taking Care Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 3201890/2020
- Decision date
- 16 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JONES
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs D Bailey-Smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mrs D Bailey-Smith, presented a complaint of unfair dismissal against PPP Taking Care Ltd. The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal found that she was not entitled to bring the complaint. It also recorded that she had been given an opportunity to provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out, but had failed to do so. The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore struck out.
The judgment states that the claimant's other complaint, that she was unfairly selected for redundancy because of her status as a married person, was not affected by this judgment.
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 ERA 1996. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.