Case 6044637/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Hollie Townsend v Redhill Garage EM Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6044637/2025
- Decision date
- 25 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McTigue Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Hollie Townsend
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant complained that she was unfairly dismissed. The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint.
The tribunal stated that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have not less than two years' service to make an unfair dismissal complaint. It found that the claimant had been employed by the respondent for less than two years and had failed to give an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out, despite being given the opportunity to do so.
The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints are not affected by this judgment, but the provided text does not identify those complaints.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the unfair dismissal complaint was struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and had not given an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out. It also states that the claimant's other complaints are not affected by this judgment, but those other complaints are not identified in the provided text. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.