Case 8002445/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Number: 8002445/2025 M P J Vusula v London Clubs Management Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 8002445/2025
- Decision date
- 17 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge McFatridge Case
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Number: 8002445/2025 M P J Vusula
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the part of Ms Vusula's claim for ordinary unfair dismissal under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Employment Judge McFatridge held that, on the dates of employment given in the ET1, the claimant did not have sufficient qualifying service to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim.
At a hearing on 15 April 2026, the claimant was given a reasonable opportunity to make representations on why that part of the claim should not be struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. The claimant accepted that she did not have sufficient qualifying service for this type of claim, while indicating that she was bringing other claims that did not require two years' qualifying service.
The judgment records no monetary remedy. The only adjudicated outcome in this judgment was that the ordinary unfair dismissal part of the claim was struck out under rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment addressed only the part of the claim for ordinary unfair dismissal under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which was struck out under rule 38 as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- no reasonable prospect of success
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.