Case 3305188/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Ms E Domagala v Eunice Artisan Bakery Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 3305188/2018
- Decision date
- 17 April 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Foxwell
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms E Domagala
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Foxwell, sitting alone in Cambridge on 29 March 2019, struck out the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint. The judgment records that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service before an unfair dismissal complaint can be brought, subject to exceptions for certain reasons for dismissal.
The tribunal found that Ms Domagala had been employed by Eunice Artisan Bakery Limited for less than two years. It also found that she did not allege that the reason for dismissal was one of the reasons to which the two-year qualifying period does not apply. On that basis, the tribunal held that she was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint and struck it out.
The judgment expressly states that the claimant's other complaints, including constructive dismissal and sex discrimination, were not affected by this decision. No remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996 because the claimant had less than two years' service and did not allege a reason for dismissal to which the qualifying period does not apply. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.