Case 3312680/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms P Stephens v Dacorum Borough Council and 2 others — 2023
- Case reference
- 3312680/2022
- Decision date
- 28 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shastri-Hurst Appearances
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Ms P Stephens
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Ms P Stephens, brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Dacorum Borough Council, Vivid Resourcing Ltd and Sapphire DNP Ltd. The hearing took place in private by telephone before Employment Judge Shastri-Hurst on 25 April 2023.
The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have at least two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. It found that the claimant had been employed by the third respondent for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal concluded that the claimant was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint and struck it out. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant had less than two years' service with the third respondent and was therefore not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 ERA 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.