Case 3300941/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms I Williamson v Pet Healthcare Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3300941/2024
- Decision date
- 6 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms I Williamson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs I Williamson brought a single complaint of unfair dismissal against Pet Healthcare Ltd. The tribunal recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint unless a statutory exception applies.
The claimant's email of 6 February 2024 stated that she had been employed for less than two years, from around May to September 2023. Although she was given an opportunity to argue that she had the necessary qualifying service or that an exception applied, she did not do so.
The tribunal also wrote on 13 December 2024 asking whether she was alleging a protected disclosure and, if so, for details, but no reply was received. On that basis, the tribunal held there was no reasonable prospect of the unfair dismissal complaint succeeding and struck out the complaint. As that was the only complaint, the entire claim was struck out.
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's own email of 6 February 2024 said she had been employed for less than two years, from around May to September 2023, and she did not present any argument that she had two years' service or that any statutory exception applied. The tribunal also wrote on 13 December 2024 asking whether she was alleging protected disclosure and, if so, for details, but no reply was received. The tribunal found there was no reasonable prospect of the unfair dismissal complaint succeeding on the material provided. | 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.
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.