Case 6034074/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Karol Lizeth Morillo Ospina v Uber London Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6034074/2025
- Decision date
- 4 August 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Abbott Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Karol Lizeth Morillo Ospina
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Karol Lizeth Morillo Ospina’s unfair dismissal claim against Uber London Ltd. This was the only complaint on the claim form. The claimant had been employed for less than two years and therefore did not meet the qualifying service requirement under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal warned the claimant by letter dated 11 February 2026 that it proposed to strike out the claim. She did not respond or provide an explanation identifying a relevant exception to the service requirement. The tribunal found that she had not given an acceptable reason why the claim should proceed despite having the opportunity to do so. The hearing listed for 24–25 July 2028 was cancelled. The judgment records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant had less than two years’ service and did not identify a relevant exception to the qualifying service requirement or respond to the tribunal’s strike-out warning. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996: two-year qualifying service requirement and exceptions
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.