Case 1301749/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Kissun v Sigma Financial Group — 2022
- Case reference
- 1301749/2022
- Decision date
- 22 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wedderspoon Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Kissun
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss S Kissun brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against The Sigma Financial Group Limited. The tribunal found that she had been employed for less than two years, and therefore did not satisfy the qualifying service required by section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to bring an unfair dismissal claim.
The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but the tribunal recorded that she did not give an acceptable reason. On that basis, the tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint.
The judgment expressly states that the claimant’s other complaints were not affected by this decision. No monetary remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant had been employed for less than two years, so section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996 meant she was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. She did not give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the complaint should not be struck out. The judgment states that the claimant’s other complaints were not affected. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- strike out
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.