Case 3309056/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Alexandra Young v Bourn Golf & Country Club Ltd (t/a Cambridge Country Club) Heard — 2023
- Case reference
- 3309056/2022
- Decision date
- 7 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Saward
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Alexandra Young
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Saward sat alone on 14 December 2022 and corrected the respondent’s name by consent to Bourn Golf & Country Club Ltd (t/a Cambridge Country Club). The judgment records that Alexandra Young’s unfair dismissal claim could not proceed because she had not been continuously employed for the required two years at the effective date of termination. On that basis, the tribunal found the claim had no reasonable prospect of success and struck it out.
The tribunal also dealt with complaints of unauthorised deductions from wages, including unpaid wages and holiday pay. It held that those complaints had been presented out of time, so the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to consider them and the claims were dismissed. No monetary award was made. The written record notes that reasons were given orally and that no further written reasons would be provided unless requested in time.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant had not been continuously employed for at least two years at the effective date of termination, so the unfair dismissal claim had no reasonable prospect of success and was struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaints of unauthorised deductions from wages, described as unpaid wages and holiday pay, were presented out of time and the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to consider them. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.