Case 3213353/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms K Pennicott v London Design and Engineering UTC — 2021
- Case reference
- 3213353/2020
- Decision date
- 9 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gardiner
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms K Pennicott
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs K Pennicott's unfair dismissal complaint was struck out. Employment Judge Gardiner recorded that an unfair dismissal claim requires not less than two years' service under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and found that the claimant had been employed by the respondent for less than two years.
The tribunal also recorded that the claimant was given the opportunity to provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out, but did not do so. On that basis, the complaint of unfair dismissal was struck out. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant had less than two years' service, so she was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. She was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but no acceptable reason was provided. The judgment stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected. | 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.