Case 3307539/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Wagener v And Lancaster Motor Company t/a Lancaster Land Rover Reading Private Preliminary Hearing (Case Management) — 2020
- Case reference
- 3307539/2018
- Decision date
- 24 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mrs
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss E Wagener
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt this private preliminary hearing on 24 February 2020, the tribunal dealt with two claims only: wrongful dismissal/notice pay and unfair dismissal. The Claimant confirmed that she had been paid in lieu of notice, and the wrongful dismissal/notice pay claim under article 3 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (E&W) Order 1994 was withdrawn and dismissed.
The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed because the Claimant confirmed that she did not have the two years' qualifying service required to bring such a claim. The judgment records section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 as the relevant statutory provision. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | The Claimant confirmed she had been paid in lieu of notice, so the wrongful dismissal/notice pay claim was withdrawn and dismissed. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The Claimant confirmed she did not have the necessary two years' qualifying employment to bring a claim of unfair dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- article 3 Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (E&W) Order 1994
- 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.