Case 6014313/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Eccles v Halo Hair Group — 2025
- Case reference
- 6014313/2025
- Decision date
- 23 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Arullendran Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms L Eccles
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs L Eccles brought an unfair dismissal complaint against Halo Hair Group. The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have at least two years' service to bring such a complaint, and found that Ms Eccles had been employed for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal concluded that she was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal proceedings. It also recorded that she had been given the opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but did not give an acceptable reason. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore struck out.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint, found the claimant had worked for less than two years, and struck out the claim after she did not provide an acceptable reason against strike out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.