Case 2600347/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Dallison v Fashion4Passion — 2026
- Case reference
- 2600347/2022
- Decision date
- 29 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkinson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Dallison
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs S Dallison's complaint of unfair dismissal against Fashion4Passion was struck out. The tribunal said section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
Because the statutory qualifying period was not met, the tribunal held that the claimant was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. It also recorded that the claimant had been given the opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but had not given 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 struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because section 108 ERA 1996 requires at least two years' service, and the claimant had less than two years' service. The tribunal also said the claimant did not give an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out. The judgment stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected. | 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.