Case 6019708/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Coningsby v The hair Company Ely — 2026
- Case reference
- 6019708/2025
- Decision date
- 16 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Coningsby
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant complained of unfair dismissal. The tribunal stated that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires not less than two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and that the claimant had been employed by the respondent for less than two years.
The tribunal found that the claimant was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal proceedings and had not given an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out despite being given the opportunity to do so. The unfair dismissal claim was struck out, while the claim for unpaid wages was stated to be continuing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states the unfair dismissal claim is struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and was not entitled to bring the complaint. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the claim for unpaid wages is continuing, so no final outcome is given for this claim. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.