Case 6021185/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms H Mayer v Maximus UK Services Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6021185/2025
- Decision date
- 20 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brewer Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms H Mayer
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs H Mayer's unfair dismissal claim was struck out because the tribunal found that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required two years' service and that she had been employed for less than two years. The tribunal also recorded that she had not given any valid reason why the unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out.
At the start of the case management hearing, the claimant confirmed that she was no longer claiming race discrimination or age discrimination, and those claims were therefore recorded as withdrawn. The tribunal did not make substantive findings on the merits of those claims.
The claimant's breach of contract claim was struck out after she confirmed that it was not a claim for money outstanding at the date of termination, which meant the tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to hear it. The remaining claim, described in the reasons as a breach of statutory duty claim relating to flexible working, was also struck out because the claimant confirmed that she had not made a request under section 80F ERA 1996; on that basis, the tribunal said the section 80H complaint route was not engaged and there was no jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that section 108 ERA 1996 required two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint, and found the claimant had less than two years' service. It also found no valid reason why the claim should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | At the beginning of the case management hearing the claimant confirmed that she was no longer pursuing race discrimination. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Age discrimination | At the beginning of the case management hearing the claimant confirmed that she was no longer pursuing age discrimination. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
| Breach of contract | The claimant confirmed that the breach of contract claim was not a claim for money outstanding at the date of termination, and the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Struck out | — | — |
| Flexible working | The claim was described as a breach of statutory duty claim relating to flexible working. The claimant said she had not in fact made a request under section 80F ERA 1996, so the section 80H route was not engaged and the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.80F Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.80H 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.