Case 6000633/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Howlett v Green Wright Chalton Annis — 2023
- Case reference
- 6000633/2023
- Decision date
- 23 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss E Howlett
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Miss E Howlett's unfair dismissal complaint. It held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service to present an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that the claimant had been employed by Green Wright Chalton Annis for less than two years.
Because the service requirement was not met, the tribunal concluded that she was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. It also recorded that the claimant had been given the opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but did not provide an acceptable reason. The judgment states that the striking out of the unfair dismissal complaint did not affect the claimant's other complaints, and did not prevent her from arguing that her dismissal was an act of discrimination and seeking loss of earnings damages for that act.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because the claimant had less than two years' service and was therefore not entitled to bring such a complaint. She did not give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why it should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.108 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.