Case 3202187/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Nicola Herring v EU Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3202187/2020
- Decision date
- 28 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Taylor Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Nicola Herring
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Nicola Herring worked for EU Ltd as a Multi-drop Delivery Driver from 10 March 2020 to 12 August 2020. The hearing was conducted remotely. The tribunal first addressed unfair dismissal and explained that a claim under s.94 ERA 1996 requires two years' continuous employment ending at the effective date of termination under s.108(1) ERA 1996. Ms Herring accepted that she did not have the required qualifying period, so the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.
The tribunal then dealt with the contract-based notice issue. It recorded that the parties did not dispute that Ms Herring had been given one week's notice, and it considered whether any contractual notice pay exceeded what she had received. Although she said she had not been given a contract of employment to sign and had not received a P45, the tribunal found she had received the lawful and correct period of notice and notice pay. The breach of contract claim was therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claimant did not have sufficient continuity of employment to present the claim; she accepted she did not have the required two years' qualifying service. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal treated this as a notice pay / wrongful dismissal issue and found the claimant had received the lawful and correct period of notice and notice pay. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.108(1) ERA 1996
- s.86 ERA 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.