Case 6013934/2026 · Employment Tribunal
Cristina Barriere v Parallel Employee Benefits Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6013934/2026
- Decision date
- 30 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Abbott Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Cristina Barriere
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Cristina Barriere’s unfair dismissal complaint against Parallel Employee Benefits Limited. She had been employed for less than two years and therefore did not meet the qualifying-service requirement under section 108(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, unless a relevant exception applied.
A letter dated 27 April 2026 warned Barriere that the tribunal proposed to strike out the complaint on this basis. Her responses did not identify a relevant exception or provide an explanation from which the tribunal could identify one. The tribunal found that she had not given an acceptable reason why the complaint should proceed, despite having the opportunity to do so. Her other complaints were unaffected by the judgment. No monetary award was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant’s other complaints were expressly unaffected by this judgment. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Section 108(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996: two-year qualifying-service requirement
- Exceptions under the other subsections of section 108 of the 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.