Case 6004327/2025 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Ms K Johnson, In-House Counsel — 2025
- Case reference
- 6004327/2025
- Decision date
- 26 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal, sitting in chambers at Plymouth on 6 November 2025, dismissed the claimant's ordinary unfair dismissal claim because she had insufficient continuity of service to bring that claim under section 108(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment records that this was the reason the unfair dismissal claim could not proceed.
The tribunal also dealt with any claim alleging unfair dismissal for having made protected public interest disclosures under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. To the extent such a claim existed, it was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. The judgment states that this did not affect the claimant's remaining claims, which were to proceed under the case management order made the same day.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claimant had insufficient continuity of service to pursue an unfair dismissal claim under section 108(1) Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal recorded that, to the extent there was any claim alleging unfair dismissal for making protected public interest disclosures under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996, that claim was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.108(1) ERA 1996
- s.103A 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.