Case 3205974/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Pethers v Fairfield Garage (Leigh on Sea) Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3205974/2021
- Decision date
- 29 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Reid
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Pethers
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint on paper. By letter dated 17 February 2022, it invited representations on why the claim should not be struck out because the claimant did not have the required two years' continuous employment and did not appear to fall within any exception to the two-year rule.
The claimant did not respond directly to the tribunal on that issue, but her letter to the respondent dated 9 March 2022 was treated as her response. The tribunal held that nothing in what she said brought her within any exception to the two-year rule. It added that the fact the claim was framed as constructive dismissal did not disapply the two-year qualifying period.
The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore struck out. The tribunal stated that the claimant's remaining claims would be considered at the preliminary hearing on 9 May 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 the claimant did not have two years' continuous employment and did not appear to fall within any exception to the two-year rule. The tribunal noted the claimant did not respond directly to its letter dated 17 February 2022, but treated her letter to the respondent dated 9 March 2022 as her response. The tribunal said that the fact the claim was described as constructive dismissal did not mean the two-year rule did not apply. | Struck out | — | — |
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.