Case 3311522/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A E Aires v Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 3311522/2023
- Decision date
- 23 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hawksworth Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A E Aires
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a complaint of unfair dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider an ordinary unfair dismissal complaint because, at the time of dismissal, the claimant had worked for the respondent for less than six months, which was less than the two years' employment required under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed.
The claimant applied to amend her claim to include a complaint of automatic unfair dismissal because of whistleblowing under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Employment Judge Hawksworth refused permission to amend, so the claim did not include a complaint of automatic unfair dismissal.
The judgment recorded that the claimant was pursuing other complaints, including discriminatory dismissal as direct disability discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, and that those complaints were not dismissed and would proceed to a main hearing. No remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to consider the ordinary unfair dismissal complaint because the claimant had less than two years' employment. Permission to amend to add automatic unfair dismissal because of whistleblowing was refused, so that complaint was not included in the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 103A of the 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.