Case 3303650/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Elliott v Harringtons Hair — 2025
- Case reference
- 3303650/2024
- Decision date
- 10 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Matthews Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Elliott
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss C Elliott brought an unfair dismissal claim against Harringtons Hair. By letter dated 24 June 2024, the tribunal gave her an opportunity to make written representations as to why the claim should not be struck out. The stated basis was section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which provides that a claimant is not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint unless they have at least two years' service, subject to specific exceptions.
The claimant did not provide written representations in response to that opportunity. On that basis, the tribunal struck out the claim. The judgment records no substantive determination of dismissal merits and no monetary award.
The judgment was approved by Employment Judge Matthews on 23 January 2025 and sent to the parties on 10 February 2025.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim after giving the claimant an opportunity by letter dated 24 June 2024 to explain why it should not be struck out. The reason given was section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, under which a claimant is not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint unless they have two years' employment or fall within a specific exception. The claimant did not make written representations, so the claim was 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.