Case 3304191/2024 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 3304191/2024
- Decision date
- 12 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge K J Palmer sitting alone at Bury St Edmunds on 9 April 2025. The Tribunal dealt only with jurisdictional and case-management issues and did not hear evidence on the merits of any substantive complaint.
The Claimant's unfair dismissal claim was dismissed because she did not have two years' continuous employment. The Tribunal stated that, for that reason, it had no jurisdiction to hear an unfair dismissal claim.
The Claimant's notice pay claim was withdrawn and was therefore dismissed on withdrawal. The Tribunal also recorded a complaint described as 'bullying and injustice', but held that it disclosed no claim within the Tribunal's jurisdiction and dismissed it on that basis.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The Claimant's notice pay claim was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the Claimant did not have two years' continuous employment, so the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The pleaded matter described as 'bullying and injustice' was held to disclose no claim within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.