Case 3300337/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss R Olayinka v Brent Council — 2024
- Case reference
- 3300337/2024
- Decision date
- 16 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cowen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss R Olayinka
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy letter dated 2 September 2024, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing on why the unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out. The tribunal explained that under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 a claimant is not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint unless they have two years' service or fall within a specific exception, which did not appear to apply on the information provided.
The tribunal recorded that it appeared from the claim that the claimant had been employed for less than two years. On that basis, it concluded that it could not consider the unfair dismissal complaint. The tribunal also found that the claimant had failed to make representations in writing, had failed to make sufficient representations, or had failed to request a hearing as invited.
As a result, the complaint of unfair dismissal was struck out. The judgment notes that the claimant's remaining claim or claims remained listed for hearing on 18 November 2024.
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 appeared to have less than two years' employment and did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing after being invited to do so by letter dated 2 September 2024. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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.