Case 6029693/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs E de Beer v Transunion Information Group Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6029693/2025
- Decision date
- 22 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brain Appearances
- Venue
- Sheffield in private
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs E de Beer
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the private video hearing in Sheffield on 22 December 2025, Employment Judge Brain dealt only with the claimant’s complaint of constructive unfair dismissal brought under sections 94 to 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Tribunal decided that it had no jurisdiction to consider that complaint because the claimant lacked the necessary qualifying service required by section 108 of the 1996 Act.
The result was that the constructive unfair dismissal complaint was struck out. The written judgment expressly records that the claimant’s other complaints were unaffected by this decision, so this judgment did not determine the merits of any remaining claims.
The note to the judgment states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time. No remedy was assessed in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to consider the claimant’s constructive unfair dismissal complaint because she did not have the qualifying service required by section 108 ERA 1996. The judgment states that the claimant’s other complaints were unaffected. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- sections 94 to 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 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.