Case 3314414/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms R Raimondo v Sterling Studios Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3314414/2022
- Decision date
- 30 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms R Raimondo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Ms R Raimondo, brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Sterling Studios Ltd. The tribunal recorded 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.
The tribunal found that Ms Raimondo had been employed for less than two years. On that basis, it held that she was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. It also recorded that the claimant had been given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out but did not provide an acceptable reason.
Accordingly, the unfair dismissal complaint was struck 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 section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint, found the claimant had been employed for less than two years, and struck out the complaint after no acceptable reason was given why it should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.