Case 4111748/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Lynsey McMullen v Scottish African Safari Park Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 4111748/2021
- Decision date
- 16 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Russell Bradley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Lynsey McMullen
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Lynsey McMullen brought a single claim of unfair dismissal against Scottish African Safari Park Limited. The tribunal held that she was not continuously employed for a period of not less than two years ending with her effective date of termination, as required by section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It therefore found that it had no jurisdiction to determine the claim and dismissed it.
The tribunal found that the claimant's first seasonal contract began on 3 July 2019 and was due to end on 27 October 2019, with no further notice required. It accepted that the lack of a P45 did not determine whether employment had continued, and found that the seasonal contract had in fact ended on 27 October 2019. It also accepted that there was no contractual relationship again until at earliest 25 November 2019, which was supported by the time records.
For the period between about 25 November 2019 and 13 January 2020, the tribunal found that the claimant was engaged as a worker under a flexible working agreement, not as an employee. It relied on the wording of that agreement, which said there was no obligation on the respondent to provide work, no obligation on the claimant to accept work, and no continuity of employment between assignments. The tribunal found that this arrangement was suitable because the claimant continued to run her own business and accepted work only as and when requested.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant had continuity of service from 13 January 2020 until 1 August 2021, when her employment ended by redundancy notice. However, because she could not count back to August 2019, she did not reach the two years' continuous employment needed to bring an unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal also held that the circumstances did not fall within section 212(3) of the 1996 Act.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed as the tribunal found the claimant did not have the two years' continuous employment required by section 108 ERA 1996, so it had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 108 ERA 1996
- section 212 ERA 1996
- section 94 ERA 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.