Case 3306355/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Miss K Thomas v Haringey Council — 2023

Case reference: 3306355/2022
Decision date: 8 January 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge R Lewis Date

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Miss K Thomas

Respondent

Haringey Council

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Miss K Thomas brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Haringey Council. The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required two years' service before an unfair dismissal complaint could be brought, and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.

Because the claimant was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and did not provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out when given the opportunity to do so, the tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim. The judgment records that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because the claimant had less than two years' service and therefore was not entitled to bring the claim under section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment states that the claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but no acceptable reason was provided.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.