Case 6017772/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms K Clare v Minet Green Health Practice On The Papers — 2025
- Case reference
- 6017772/2024
- Decision date
- 5 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fredericks-Bowyer On
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms K Clare
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Fredericks-Bowyer considered the unfair dismissal complaint on the papers and struck it out. The tribunal found that the claimant was employed from 27 September 2022 to 15 May 2024, which was less than two years' continuous service, so she could not bring an ordinary unfair dismissal complaint.
The tribunal had written to the claimant on 10 June 2025 proposing strike out for lack of service and inviting submissions. The claimant objected on 1 July 2025 and attached medical evidence said to relate to the injury she suffered, but the tribunal said that evidence did not assist in establishing a way to bring an unfair dismissal complaint without two years' service.
The tribunal concluded that it had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal complaint and therefore struck it out. It stated that the claimant's other complaints under the same claim number were unaffected by this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' continuous service at the time of dismissal and therefore had no standing to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal complaint. The tribunal said the other complaints under the claim number were unaffected by this judgment. | Struck out | — | — |
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.