Case 2602916/2018 · Employment Tribunal

Ms KB Shah v Sammic Clothess Ltd — 2026

Case reference: 2602916/2018
Decision date: 27 April 2026
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Heap JUDGMENT

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms KB Shah

Respondent

Sammic Clothess Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal dealt only with the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint in this judgment. It found that Ms KB Shah had been employed by Sammic Clothess Ltd for less than two years, so section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 meant she was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint.

The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but the tribunal found that she did not provide an acceptable reason. On that basis, the tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint under rule 37.

The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision. No monetary award was made in 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 the claimant had less than two years' service and so was not entitled to bring the claim under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out but did not give an acceptable reason.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

2 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.