Case 3312800/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the First v Ms Jennifer Young, In house Counsel For the Second Respondent: Mr Alex Clark, In house Counsel — 2022
- Case reference
- 3312800/2021
- Decision date
- 20 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Laidler Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the claimant did not have two years' service and therefore was not entitled to bring unfair dismissal or redundancy payment claims. Those claims were dismissed.
The judgment further recorded that the remaining complaints, described as a failure to inform and consult and monetary claims under the Employment Rights Act 1996, were presented outside the relevant time period. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to have presented them in time, held that it had no jurisdiction to determine those complaints, and dismissed them. Oral reasons were given at the hearing, and the written record is dated 20 June 2022 and was sent to the parties on 30 June 2022.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claimant did not have two years' service to entitle him to bring the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed because the claimant did not have two years' service to entitle him to bring the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The judgment states that the remaining complaints, described as a failure to inform and consult and monetary claims under the Employment Rights Act 1996, were submitted outside the relevant time period and dismissed because it was reasonably practicable to have presented them in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- two years' service
- reasonably practicable
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.