Case 3314919/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 3314919/2020
- Decision date
- 4 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Andrew Clarke
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered whether the claimant had two years' continuous employment so that her unfair dismissal claim could proceed. It found that she worked at the respondent from 19 July 2018 through an agency, with the agency paying her and being responsible for tax and National Insurance, before she became employed by the respondent on 24 September 2018.
The tribunal held that the relevant period began when she started work under the respondent's contract of employment, not when she first performed work at the respondent's premises through the agency or when discussions about permanent employment took place. Because her employment with the respondent ran from 24 September 2018 to dismissal effective 28 August 2020, she lacked two years' continuous service and the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
The judgment stated that the remaining claims dealt with by Employment Judge Bedeau's orders, including race discrimination claims, remained to be dealt with at a later hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the claimant lacked the required two years' continuous service. Other claims, including race discrimination, were expressly left to be heard later and were not adjudicated in this judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.230(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.211(1)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996
- General of the Salvation Army v Dewsbury [1984] ICR 498
- O'Sullivan v DSM Demolition Ltd (UKEAT/0257/19/VP)
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.