Case 3304337/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Challans v Bloxham School Ltd and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 3304337/2022
- Decision date
- 29 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shastri-Hurst
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms Challans
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that, at a preliminary hearing on 23 March 2023, the claimant accepted she did not have two years' service with either respondent. It stated that two years' service is a pre-condition for presenting an ordinary unfair dismissal claim under s.108 ERA.
On that basis, the Tribunal found that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint of ordinary unfair dismissal under s.98 ERA and struck out that claim. The judgment expressly stated that the claimant's automatic unfair dismissal and whistleblowing detriment claims remained listed for hearing on 27, 28 and 29 September 2023.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment struck out the complaint of ordinary unfair dismissal under s.98 ERA because the claimant accepted she did not have two years' service with either respondent, so the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction under s.108 ERA. The judgment stated that the claimant's automatic unfair dismissal and whistleblowing detriment claims remained listed for hearing and did not determine them. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- rule 37
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.