Case 1401875/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S C Wilsher v Dignity Funeral Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1401875/2022
- Decision date
- 7 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Roper
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S C Wilsher
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint. It held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal claim, and found that Miss S C Wilsher had been employed by Dignity Funeral Limited for less than two years.
Because the service requirement was not met, the tribunal concluded that the claimant was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. It also recorded that she had been given an opportunity, after a tribunal letter dated DATE, to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but she did not give an acceptable reason.
The judgment therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. It expressly stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint. It found the claimant had less than two years' service and did not provide an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity after a tribunal letter, 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.