Case 3303166/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Elliott v Silverstone Heritage Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3303166/2024
- Decision date
- 25 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge George Representation
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Elliott
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing, and the tribunal decided to proceed after considering rule 48. It was satisfied that she had been given notice of the hearing and of the strike-out and jurisdiction issues, and that there was no explanation for her absence.
The unfair dismissal complaint was struck out because the claimant's employment ran from 6 October 2021 to 24 August 2023, so there were no reasonable prospects of showing two years' continuous service. The unauthorised deduction complaint, including final salary and accrued holiday pay, was dismissed because the claim was presented on 19 March 2024, after the extended time limit calculated by the tribunal, and the claimant had not shown that it was not reasonably practicable to present it in time or that it was presented within a reasonable further period.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the tribunal found there were no reasonable prospects of the claimant showing at least two years' continuous employment. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed because the tribunal found the claim was presented outside the applicable time limit and it did not have jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment described the unauthorised deduction complaint as including accrued holiday pay on termination; it was dismissed for the same jurisdictional time-limit reason. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- rule 48
- s.207A Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
- Walls Meat Co Ltd v Khan [1979] I.C.R. 52
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd [1974] 1 All ER 520
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.