Case 4112705/2018 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4112705/2018 Held in Glasgow Miss H Crawford v Granma's Kitchen UK Limited — 2018
- Case reference
- 4112705/2018
- Decision date
- 6 November 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Gall Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4112705/2018 Held in Glasgow Miss H Crawford
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Miss H Crawford, brought an unfair dismissal claim against Granma's Kitchen UK Limited. The tribunal considered the case could not proceed because the claimant had less than two years' service with the respondent, meaning the claim appeared to have no reasonable prospect of success.
On 26 September 2018, the tribunal gave the claimant until 3 October 2018 to provide written reasons or to request a hearing to explain why the claim should not be struck out. The claimant did not give an acceptable reason and did not request a hearing.
The tribunal therefore struck out the unfair dismissal claim under rule 37 on the ground that it had no reasonable prospect of success because the claimant did not have the necessary two years' continuous qualifying service.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because the claimant did not have the two years' continuous qualifying service needed to bring an unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons or request a hearing, but no acceptable reason was provided. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- two years' continuous qualifying service
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.