Case 3304015/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs I Korpysa v KLN Freight (UK) Limited (previously Kerry Logistics UK) — 2025
- Case reference
- 3304015/2024
- Decision date
- 21 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchings
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs I Korpysa
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 21 May 2025, heard by CVP before Employment Judge Hutchings sitting alone, the claimant pursued a complaint of unfair dismissal against KLN Freight (UK) Limited, formerly Kerry Logistics UK. The claimant appeared in person with lay support and a Polish translator; the respondent was represented by counsel.
The tribunal struck out the claim. It found that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have not less than two years' service in order to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and that the claimant had been employed for less than two years. On that basis, the tribunal held that she was not entitled to bring the proceedings.
The tribunal also recorded that the claimant was given the opportunity at the hearing to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but she failed to give an acceptable reason. Reasons for striking out the claim were given orally at the hearing, and the judgment was approved and sent to the parties on 16 June 2025.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant had less than two years' service, so she was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | 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.