Case 6015422/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S L McLaren v FearFree — 2024
- Case reference
- 6015422/2024
- Decision date
- 10 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bax Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S L McLaren
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs S L McLaren brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against FearFree. The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service before an unfair dismissal complaint can be brought, and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years. It therefore concluded that she was not entitled to present the unfair dismissal complaint.
The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out and wrote on 3 December 2024 that the two-year requirement did not apply because the case involved alleged breaches of the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal rejected that submission, stating that a dismissal said to be in breach of the Equality Act 2010 is not an exception to the qualifying period in s.108 ERA 1996. As the claimant did not provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should continue, the unfair dismissal complaint was struck out.
The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision. It also records that the judgment did not affect the claimant's separate claim that her dismissal was discriminatory under section 39(2) of the Equality Act 2010, but it makes no determination on that claim in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and did not show that s.108 ERA 1996 disapplied the qualifying period. The tribunal noted that an alleged breach of the Equality Act 2010 is not an exception to the two-year service requirement. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.108 ERA 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.