Case 3311839/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms P Mayenin (Solicitor) For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 3311839/2023
- Decision date
- 28 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Wood Appearances
- Venue
- via CVP
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms P Mayenin (Solicitor) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal considered whether the claimant had at least two years' continuous service so that it had jurisdiction to hear her unfair dismissal claim. The respondent argued that there had been a break in employment around the transfer from Accountancy MK Limited to the respondent in 2021, while the claimant said she continued working throughout and that her employment transferred.
The Tribunal found that the claimant did not resign, that there was no trial period or relevant break in employment, and that the transfer took place over a period in July, August and September 2021. It found that all of the claimant's employment with Accountancy MK Limited and the respondent counted for continuity purposes.
The Tribunal concluded that the claimant had over two years' continuous service and therefore had jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim. It made no findings on the merits of that claim, which were left for the final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary judgment only: the Tribunal found it had jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant had over two years' continuous service. The merits of the unfair dismissal claim were not decided. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.108(1) ERA 1996
- Ss.210-219 ERA 1996
- s.210(5) ERA 1996
- s.218(1) ERA 1996
- s.218(2) ERA 1996
- Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006
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.