Case 3205735/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Chretien v The Food Group Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3205735/2021
- Decision date
- 7 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lewis Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss E Chretien
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered only the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint in this judgment. It recorded that Miss E Chretien had been employed by The Food group for less than two years, and that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service before an unfair dismissal complaint can be brought.
On that basis, the tribunal held that the claimant was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal claim. It also found that, despite being given an opportunity to do so, she had not provided an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out.
Accordingly, the complaint of unfair dismissal was struck out. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision and would proceed to a hearing listed for 25 July 2022.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because section 108 ERA 1996 required at least two years' service, the claimant had less than two years' service, and she did not give an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.