Case 3302130/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Layla Victoria Hall v Locoespresso (Ely) Ltd. and 2 others — 2025
- Case reference
- 3302130/2024
- Decision date
- 1 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S. Evans Appearances
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Layla Victoria Hall
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a complaint of unfair dismissal. The tribunal recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service before a claim for unfair dismissal can be brought. The claimant stated that her employment began on 4 March 2023 and ended on 20 December 2023, which was less than two years, and she accepted that she did not have the qualifying continuous service.
On that basis, the tribunal found that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal complaint and struck it out. The judgment also records that the claimant's other complaints were the subject of separate case management orders, and they were not determined in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the claimant did not have the two years' continuous service required by section 108 ERA 1996. The claimant said her employment ran from 4 March 2023 to 20 December 2023 and accepted she did not meet the qualifying period. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 108 ERA 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.