Case 6008572/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss K George v SpyroSoft UK — 2025
- Case reference
- 6008572/2024
- Decision date
- 4 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Livesey Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss K George
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Miss K George, brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against SpyroSoft UK. The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required at least two years' service to bring such a complaint, and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
Because the qualifying period was not met, the tribunal found that the claimant was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. It also recorded that the claimant had not given an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out. The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore struck out.
The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision. The judgment was approved by Employment Judge Livesey on 20 January 2025 and sent to the parties on 4 March 2025.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant had less than two years' service and therefore was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.