Case 6001356/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Raymond v Denholm industrial services Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 6001356/2024
- Decision date
- 4 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gray Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Raymond
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss A Raymond brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Denholm industrial services Ltd. Employment Judge Gray recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have at least two years' service to present an unfair dismissal complaint.
The tribunal found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years. On that basis, it concluded that she was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal claim. The claimant was given the opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but she did not provide an acceptable reason.
The judgment therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. It also states 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 | The tribunal held that the claimant had less than two years' service, so she was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It also recorded that she was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out but did not give an acceptable reason. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 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.