Case 4104943/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Adegun v Represented by: Ms V Toyi - Friend The Scottish Ministers — 2023
- Case reference
- 4104943/2022
- Decision date
- 20 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Wiseman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J Adegun
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a claim presented on 5 September 2022 complaining of unfair constructive dismissal. The hearing on 14 February 2023 was limited to whether she had the necessary qualifying service to bring an unfair dismissal claim. The respondent argued that she did not, relying on the statutory two-year qualifying period under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal found that the claimant had previously worked for the respondent as an agency worker until 28 February 2020, then received a conditional offer of permanent appointment by email on 12 March 2020. She signed and returned the acceptance on 13 March 2020 and delivered the required pre-employment documentation on 19 March 2020. However, the tribunal held that this did not mean a contract of employment had begun at that point. The documents made clear that a joining letter would issue only after satisfactory checks, and that a formal offer of employment depended on completion of those checks.
The tribunal found that the joining letter was issued on 8 July 2020 and that the claimant's employment commenced on 20 July 2020. It accepted that Covid and lockdown may have delayed the issuing of the formal offer, but held that those circumstances were not relevant to the legal calculation of length of service. Because the effective date of termination was 6 June 2022, the claimant had less than two years' continuous service.
On that basis, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to determine the unfair dismissal claim and dismissed it. No monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal dismissed the claim because the claimant had less than two years' continuous service and so did not have the qualifying service needed for an unfair dismissal claim. The claimant's presentation described the case as unfair constructive dismissal, but the judgment treats it as an unfair dismissal jurisdiction issue. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.211(1) 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.