Case 4110249/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Joanne Byrne v Limited st and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 4110249/2021
- Decision date
- 1 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ian McPherson
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss Joanne Byrne
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 26 January 2022, Employment Judge Ian McPherson recorded that the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal under section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was withdrawn by her representative. The tribunal accepted that she did not have two years' qualifying service, as required by section 108 ERA 1996, and accordingly dismissed that part of the claim against both respondents under Rule 52.
The same order states that any head of complaint alleging automatically unfair dismissal, as set out in the claimant's additional information dated 26 October 2021, was also dismissed. No monetary award was made in this judgment.
The tribunal further recorded that the remaining heads of claim, namely failure to inform and consult under the TUPE Regulations 2006 and unlawful age discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, were unaffected by this withdrawal and would proceed separately under a written Note and Orders issued under separate cover.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant's unfair dismissal complaint under section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was withdrawn by her representative at the preliminary hearing and dismissed under Rule 52. The tribunal accepted that she did not have two years' qualifying service under section 108 ERA 1996. The judgment also says any head of complaint alleging automatically unfair dismissal, raised in additional information dated 26 October 2021, was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.108 ERA 1996
- Rule 51
- Rule 52
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.