Case 2308728/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A-M Flower v Secretary of State for Business & Trade and 1 other — 2026
- Case reference
- 2308728/2025
- Decision date
- 12 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ramsden Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs A-M Flower
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs A-M Flower brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against the Secretary of State for Business and Trade and Bishop Challoner School (in voluntary liquidation). Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have not less than two years' service to make an unfair dismissal complaint, and the Tribunal recorded that the claimant was employed by the Second Respondent for less than two years.
The claimant had been given the opportunity to give an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out and had not done so. Employment Judge Ramsden accordingly struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. The judgment expressly states that the claimant's other complaints are not affected by this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Unfair dismissal complaint struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service with the Second Respondent, as required by s.108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment notes the claimant's other complaints are not affected. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.