Case 3300117/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Simon v Riot Labs Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3300117/2024
- Decision date
- 31 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss M Simon
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe only claim identified in the judgment was unfair dismissal. By letter dated 27 June 2024, the tribunal invited the claimant to make representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out, because she had less than two years' continuous employment and was not alleging that the dismissal was unfair otherwise than generally within the meaning of section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
At the hearing on 31 July 2024, the claimant said nothing that cast doubt on that position. The employment judge therefore held that the unfair dismissal claim could not succeed because it was made only on the basis of general unfairness under section 98 ERA 1996 and the claimant did not have the period of continuous employment required by section 108 of that Act. The claim was struck out.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under rule 37 after the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations. The tribunal recorded that the claim was advanced only on the basis that dismissal was unfair within section 98 ERA 1996, and that the claimant had less than two years' continuous employment required by section 108 ERA 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 37
- section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 108 of the 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.