Case 6002121/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Petra Broadbelt v A Dogs Day Out Exeter Limited (In Creditors Voluntary Liquidation) — 2024
- Case reference
- 6002121/2024
- Decision date
- 3 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Roper Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Petra Broadbelt
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint. It held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required the claimant to have at least two years' service to bring such a complaint, and found that Petra Broadbelt had been employed for less than two years.
Because the statutory qualifying period was not met, the tribunal concluded that the claimant was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. It also recorded that the claimant had been given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but no acceptable reason was provided.
The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore struck out. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision.
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 required two years' service, and the claimant had less than two years' service. The claimant was also 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- 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.