Case 3308959/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms K Croughton v Glasswells Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3308959/2023
- Decision date
- 7 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Graham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms K Croughton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out Ms Croughton's unfair dismissal complaint. It found that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required at least two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal claim, and that the Claimant had been employed for less than two years. The Tribunal also noted that, after a letter dated 3 October 2023 gave the Claimant until 17 October 2023 to respond, she failed to provide an acceptable reason against strike out.
The judgment did not determine the merits of the disability discrimination complaint. It expressly stated that the disability discrimination complaint was not struck out and would proceed to a preliminary hearing for case management on 26 March 2024. No remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service and the Claimant had less than two years' service. The Tribunal also noted that the Claimant did not provide an acceptable response to the strike-out warning letter dated 3 October 2023. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The Tribunal recorded that the complaint of disability discrimination was not struck out and would proceed to a preliminary hearing for case management on 26 March 2024. No merits finding was made in this judgment. | Other | Disability | — |
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.
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.