Case 4118380/2018 · Employment Tribunal
(sitting alone) Mrs I Csuka v Stuart Wright Care Ltd — 2018
- Case reference
- 4118380/2018
- Decision date
- 12 December 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge I McFatridge
- Venue
- Dundee
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(sitting alone) Mrs I Csuka
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing in Dundee on 7 December 2018, Employment Judge I McFatridge, sitting alone, dealt with three complaints brought by Mrs I Csuka against Stuart Wright Care Ltd. The tribunal held that the ordinary unfair dismissal complaint under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 could not proceed because the claimant did not have qualifying service, and that claim was dismissed.
The tribunal also held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claimant's unlawful deduction from wages complaint because it was time barred, so that claim was dismissed as well. Oral reasons were given at the hearing.
The claimant's automatically unfair dismissal complaint under section 104C of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was not finally determined at this stage. The tribunal directed that that claim should proceed to a hearing, to be arranged by telephone conference call. No monetary award or remedy was made in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the ordinary unfair dismissal complaint under section 98 ERA 1996 could not proceed because the claimant did not have qualifying service. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Flexible working | The claimant's automatically unfair dismissal complaint under section 104C ERA 1996 was allowed to proceed to a further hearing; this preliminary hearing did not determine the merits of that claim. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim because it was time barred. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.98 ERA 1996
- s.104C ERA 1996
- time barred
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.