Ms T Parker-Hughes v Midland Mencap — 2025

Case reference: 6022139/2024
Decision date: 15 October 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Kenward Date

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms T Parker-Hughes

Respondent

Midland Mencap

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal held that Ms T Parker-Hughes’s unfair dismissal complaint was struck out. The reason given was that she had been employed by Midland Mencap for less than two years, so she was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under the Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment cites sections 94, 98, 108 and 111 of the Act.

The tribunal recorded that a strike out warning letter was sent on 23 April 2025, and that the Claimant did not give an acceptable reason, despite having the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out. The judgment states that the Claimant’s other complaints were not affected by this decision.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because the Claimant had less than two years' service and therefore was not entitled to bring the complaint under s.108 ERA 1996. The Claimant had been sent a strike out warning letter dated 23 April 2025 and did not give an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

4 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.