Case 6045662/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Elzbieta Gniaz v Booker Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 6045662/2025
- Decision date
- 16 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T Perry Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Elzbieta Gniaz
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Elzbieta Gniaz's unfair dismissal complaint against Booker Limited. It found that the claimant had less than two years' service and therefore was not entitled to bring the complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Despite being given an opportunity, the claimant had not provided an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out.
The tribunal said the conduct alleged to have led to the claimant's resignation might be considered in a discrimination claim under the Equality Act 2010, which was distinct from unfair dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant's other complaints, including any discrimination claim concerning those matters, were unaffected. The judgment recorded no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Other complaints, including any discrimination claim relating to the matters alleged to have led to the claimant's resignation, were unaffected by this judgment. No discrimination claim or protected characteristic was determined. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996: two-year qualifying service requirement
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.