Case 3202325/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Zena Bright v Seacon (SG) Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3202325/2023
- Decision date
- 20 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge C Lewis Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Zena Bright
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Zena Bright, brought a claim of unfair dismissal against Seacon (SG) Ltd. The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service before an unfair dismissal complaint can be brought, and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
Because the length-of-service requirement was not met, the tribunal found that the claimant was not entitled to bring the proceedings. The judgment records that the claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but did not provide an acceptable reason.
The tribunal therefore struck out the whole claim. It also recorded that the hearing listed for 30 April 2024 and 1 May 2024 was vacated.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant complained of unfair dismissal. The tribunal struck out the whole claim because section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service and the claimant had less than two years' service. The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out but did not give an acceptable reason. | 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.
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.