Case 6021900/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Helen Wilson v TECNIQ Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6021900/2024
- Decision date
- 8 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G. King Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Helen Wilson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningHelen Wilson brought a claim against TECNIQ Ltd that was heard at East London Hearing Centre via CVP on 8 May 2025 before Employment Judge G. King. The judgment records that the claim was for constructive unfair dismissal arising from alleged breaches of contract which caused her to resign.
The tribunal held, pursuant to s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996, that the claimant did not have the required period of two years' qualifying service to bring a constructive unfair dismissal claim. On that basis, the Employment Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the claim.
No liability findings were made on the underlying alleged breaches of contract, and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant did not have the required two years' qualifying service under s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996 and therefore had no jurisdiction to hear the constructive unfair dismissal claim based on alleged breaches of contract causing her resignation. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.