Case 3202939/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Smith v EPP Enterprise Ltd (currently dissolved) and 1 other — 2020
- Case reference
- 3202939/2019
- Decision date
- 5 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gardiner
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms C Smith
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 7 May 2020, EJ Gardiner ordered Ms C Smith to write to the Tribunal within 14 days explaining why her unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out on the basis that she had been employed for less than 2 years. The Claimant did not do so.
The Tribunal recorded that, on the Claimant's ET1, she said she had been employed from 1 October 2017 to 13 September 2019. There was no response from the first respondent, and the second respondent said that it had never employed the Claimant. On that basis, the Tribunal found that she did not have 2 years' service at the date her employment ended, referring to section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The Tribunal concluded that the unfair dismissal complaint had no reasonable prospect of success and that it had no jurisdiction to hear it. It therefore struck out the unfair dismissal claim under rule 37. The Tribunal noted that the claimant's remaining claims for notice pay, arrears of pay and holiday pay remained to be listed for hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under rule 37 after the Claimant failed to respond to the tribunal's order dated 7 May 2020 requiring her to explain why the claim should not be struck out for lack of 2 years' service. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37
- 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.