Case 6000408/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs G George-Garnett v Body Shop International Limited (In Administration) — 2023
- Case reference
- 6000408/2023
- Decision date
- 18 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smail Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs G George-Garnett
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs G George-Garnett brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against The Body Shop International Limited. Employment Judge Smail held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service before a claimant can bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
Because the statutory qualifying period was not met, the tribunal found that the claimant was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. The tribunal also noted that she was given the opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but she did not give an acceptable reason. The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore struck out on 9 May 2023, with the judgment sent to the parties on 18 May 2023. The tribunal stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and was therefore not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 ERA 1996. The tribunal recorded that she was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but did not provide an acceptable reason. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.108 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.