Case 6001427/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms B Kovacs v Single Resource Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 6001427/2024
- Decision date
- 26 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Welch Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms B Kovacs
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs B Kovacs brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Single Resource Limited. Employment Judge Welch recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal claim, and found that the claimant had been engaged by the respondent for less than two years.
Because the claimant did not meet the qualifying service requirement, the tribunal held that she was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. The judgment also records that she was given the opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but did not provide an acceptable reason.
The tribunal therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision, but no other complaint was determined in this judgment.
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 section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service and the claimant had less than two years' service. The claimant did not provide an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the complaint should not be struck out. | 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.