Case 6009176/2026 · Employment Tribunal
Camella frater v St Christopher’s Fellowship — 2026
- Case reference
- 6009176/2026
- Decision date
- 13 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Camella frater
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningCamella frater's claim of unfair dismissal against St Christopher’s Fellowship was struck out. The Tribunal found that she had been employed by the respondent for less than two years and therefore did not meet the service requirement in section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The Tribunal had written to the claimant on 19 March 2026 inviting her to explain why the complaint should not be struck out. Her response of 15 April 2026 did not explain why an exception under section 108 applied and did not provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should continue. The Tribunal also stated that “procedural unfairness surrounding my suspension” was not, by itself, a complaint that could be brought in the Employment Tribunal. The unfair dismissal complaint was accordingly struck out, bringing the claim to an end. No remedy was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and did not explain why an exception under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 applied. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996: two-year service requirement and exceptions
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.