Case 6030052/2025 · Employment Tribunal
L Koprowska v TOC Property Servicing Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6030052/2025
- Decision date
- 18 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Self Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
L Koprowska
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningL Koprowska claimed a redundancy payment and complained of unfair dismissal against TOC Property Servicing Limited. The tribunal found that she had been employed by the respondent for less than two years.
The tribunal applied sections 155 and 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It found that the claimant lacked the required two years' service both for a statutory redundancy payment and to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. She had been given an opportunity to explain why those claims should not be struck out but had not provided an acceptable reason. Both claims were struck out; the judgment stated that her other complaints were unaffected. No monetary remedy was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The claimant had less than two years' service and therefore did not have the right to a redundancy payment under section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant had less than two years' service and therefore was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- 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.