Case 6001912/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms K Swift v ATOS IT Services UK Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 6001912/2023
- Decision date
- 26 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brewer Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms K Swift
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with Ms K Swift's unfair dismissal claim against ATOS IT Services UK Limited. Employment Judge Brewer Date recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have at least two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
Because the statutory service requirement was not met, the tribunal held that the claimant was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal proceedings. The judgment also records that the claimant had not given any reason why the complaint should not be struck out, and the unfair dismissal claim was therefore struck out. The judgment states that this does not affect any other claim being pursued under case number 6001912/2023.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was struck out 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 judgment records that the claimant gave no reason why the complaint should not be struck out. It also states that the decision did not affect any other claim being pursued under the same case number. | 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.