Case 6043614/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Molly Peck v Able Canines — 2026
- Case reference
- 6043614/2025
- Decision date
- 21 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lumby Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Molly Peck
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out Molly Peck's complaints of unfair dismissal and payment of a redundancy payment against Able Canines. It considered that, under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, those complaints required at least two years' employment unless specified exceptions applied, and that no relevant exception appeared to apply in this case.
On 22 January 2026, the Tribunal warned Ms Peck that it was considering striking out those parts of the claim and invited her to explain why they should remain or to request a hearing. She did not reply. Employment Judge Lumby was satisfied that the grounds for striking out those parts under Rule 38 applied and that striking them out accorded with the overriding objective in Rule 3. The rest of the claim was not affected by the judgment, and no remedy was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Only the unfair dismissal part of the claim was struck out; the rest of the claim was not affected by this judgment. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | Only the redundancy payment part of the claim was struck out; the rest of the claim was not affected by this judgment. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 38
- overriding objective in Rule 3
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.