Case 8000886/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Number: 8000886/2024 Miss S Healy v Advance Construction Scotland Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 8000886/2024
- Decision date
- 7 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Whitcombe Case
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Number: 8000886/2024 Miss S Healy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing for case management on 9 September 2024, the claimant agreed that she had less than two years' service when her employment ended and did not appear to rely on any exception to the default two-year qualifying period for an unfair dismissal claim. The Tribunal referred to section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 when setting out the rule and its exceptions.
By case management order dated 10 September 2024, the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons by 17 September 2024 explaining why the unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out, or to request a hearing on that issue. The claimant did not provide reasons or request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint under rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 because it had no reasonable prospect of success.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 because the Tribunal found it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 38(1)(a) Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- section 108 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.