Case 6002943/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Esposito v Sindhu Immigration Services — 2024
- Case reference
- 6002943/2024
- Decision date
- 29 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Crosfill Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Esposito
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the complaint of unfair dismissal in this judgment. By a letter dated 8 August 2024, the claimant was given an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why that complaint should not be struck out. The tribunal explained that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 generally prevents a claimant from bringing an unfair dismissal complaint unless they have two years' service or fall within a specified exception, and the tribunal recorded that those exceptions did not apply here.
By a letter dated 9 August 2024, Miss C Esposito accepted the proposal to strike out the unfair dismissal complaint. The tribunal therefore struck out that complaint. The judgment notes that the claimant's remaining claims were still listed for a Preliminary Hearing on 2 September 2024.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing before strike out. The claimant accepted the proposal to strike out the unfair dismissal complaint. The reason given was section 108 ERA 1996, under which the claimant was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint because she had not been employed for two years and no exception applied. | 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.