Case 3302387/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Miss N Johnson v Bletchley and Fenny Stratford Town Hall — 2025
- Case reference
- 3302387/2025
- Decision date
- 9 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tynan Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss N Johnson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Miss N Johnson's complaint of unfair dismissal against Bletchley and Fenny Stratford Town Hall. It recorded that by letter dated 9 July 2025 the claimant had been given an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out, because section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 generally prevents an unfair dismissal complaint unless the claimant has two years' employment, subject to exceptions that did not appear to apply.
The tribunal found that the claimant failed to make written representations, or failed to make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. On that basis, the unfair dismissal complaint was struck out. The judgment also states that the claimant's remaining claim(s) remained listed for hearing on 26 February 2026.
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 section 108 ERA 1996 requires two years' employment for an unfair dismissal claim unless a specified exception applies, and the claimant did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing in response to the strike-out notice. | 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.