Case 3300609/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Alison Mobbs v The AF Group Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3300609/2023
- Decision date
- 26 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchings
- Venue
- Norwich
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Alison Mobbs
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Alison Mobbs brought unfair dismissal claims against The AF Group Ltd in relation to two contracts of employment. The case was heard at Norwich on 25 and 26 July 2023 before Employment Judge Hutchings sitting alone.
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim relating to the claimant's HR Assistant contract because it did not have jurisdiction to hear it. The reason given was that the claimant did not have the qualifying two-year period of employment.
The tribunal also dismissed the unfair dismissal claim relating to the claimant's Business Administrator contract. It found that the claim was not well founded and stated that this meant the claimant had not been constructively dismissed from that role. No monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Unfair dismissal claim in respect of the claimant's HR Assistant contract of employment. The tribunal dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction because the claimant did not have the qualifying two-year period of employment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Unfair dismissal claim in respect of the claimant's Business Administrator contract of employment. The tribunal held the claim was not well founded and said this meant the claimant had not been constructively dismissed from that position. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.