Case 1302226/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Lewis v Hair Growth Centre — 2022
- Case reference
- 1302226/2022
- Decision date
- 27 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Flood Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Lewis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint. It recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires not less than two years' service in order to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that Miss S Lewis had been employed by Hair Growth Centre for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal concluded that she was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. It further found that, although she was given the opportunity to do so, she failed to provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out. The judgment therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint.
The tribunal stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this judgment. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the claimant had been employed for less than two years, so she was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It also recorded that she did not give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the complaint should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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.