Case 3335201/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Berrie v And Homes2Inspire Limited Private Preliminary (Case Management) Hearing — 2019
- Case reference
- 3335201/2018
- Decision date
- 31 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Berrie
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a private preliminary hearing in Reading on 31 October 2019, the tribunal recorded that the claimant did not intend to present claims on behalf of Miss Fiford and Mrs Whitbread. It found that the recording of a multiple claim was in error and dismissed claim numbers 3335202/2018 and 3335203/2018.
Claim number 3335201/2018 was the claimant's unfair dismissal claim. The claimant accepted that she did not have the two years' qualifying employment needed to bring such a claim under section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996. On that basis, the tribunal held that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success and dismissed it.
The judgment states that there were no further claims, so the proceedings came to an end. No monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claim number 3335202/2018 was dismissed because the claimant said she did not intend to present claims on behalf of Miss Fiford or Mrs Whitbread and the multiple-claim recording was said to be an error. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Claim number 3335203/2018 was dismissed for the same reason: the claimant did not intend to bring a claim on behalf of Mrs Whitbread, and the multiple-claim recording was in error. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant accepted that she did not have the two years' qualifying employment required by section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996, so the unfair dismissal claim had no reasonable prospect of success and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.