Case 3302778/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v The Laundry Company — 2024
- Case reference
- 3302778/2023
- Decision date
- 3 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Moore Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed by the respondent from 30 August 2022 to 19 March 2023. She presented her claim on 27 March 2023 and on 17 April 2023 the tribunal wrote indicating that strike out was proposed because she had less than two years' service at dismissal. She responded by letter on 1 May 2023, saying in substance that she believed she had been dismissed because she had asked questions about her pension, payslips, National Insurance number and tax record.
Employment Judge S Moore held that the claimant's pleaded case was capable of amounting to a claim of automatic unfair dismissal under s.104 ERA 1996, namely dismissal for asserting the statutory right to an itemised pay statement under s.8 ERA 1996. On that basis, the two-year qualifying service requirement did not apply, and the claim was not struck out.
The judge also recorded that the pleadings and the claimant's letter disclosed a breach of contract claim under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994. That claim was said to arise from an alleged term in the dismissal letter that she would be paid until 19 April 2023 if she forwarded work contacts sent to her personal mobile phone, whereas she said she was only paid until 31 March 2023. The claimant also said she had not been paid outstanding holiday pay at termination, contrary to regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. The judgment did not decide the merits of those monetary claims.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary ruling only: the tribunal held the claim was not struck out because it was capable of being a claim under s.104 ERA 1996 for asserting the right to an itemised pay statement under s.8 ERA 1996; the merits were not determined. | Other | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal said the particulars and the claimant's letter of 1 May 2023 made apparent a breach of contract claim under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994, based on an alleged promise to pay until 19 April 2023 if work contacts were forwarded; no final decision on that claim was made in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal said the claimant was also alleging unpaid holiday pay on termination contrary to regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998; the judgment did not determine the merits of that claim. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.104 ERA 1996
- s.8 ERA 1996
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998
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.