Case 6018655/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C S Brookes- Smith v David Payton — 2024
- Case reference
- 6018655/2024
- Decision date
- 28 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge N Wilson Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C S Brookes- Smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the only claim presented was unfair dismissal. By a letter dated 23 December 2024, the claimant was given an opportunity to make written representations by 6 January 2025 as to why the claim should not be struck out for want of jurisdiction.
The tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to deal with the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant did not have the required two years' length of employment service to bring that complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The claimant did not provide written representations explaining why the claim should not be struck out or why she was entitled to bring the claim. The tribunal therefore struck out the claim. The judgment records the decision as dated 28 January 2024.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The only claim was unfair dismissal. It was struck out because the tribunal found it had no jurisdiction: the claimant did not have the required two years' continuous employment to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and she had not made written representations in response to the tribunal's letter. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Section 108 of the 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.