Case 6027371/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Terrassier v X3 Consulting Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 6027371/2025
- Decision date
- 19 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Terrassier
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Ms Terrassier was employed by X3 Consulting Ltd from 1 September 2023 until the effective date of termination on 13 June 2025. It found that no contract existed between the parties before 18 August 2023, when a contract was formed under which her continuous employment commenced on 1 September 2023. Her period of continuous employment was therefore less than two years at termination.
Employment Judge Quill held that section 108(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 applied and that none of the statutory exceptions or qualifications applied. Ms Terrassier had consequently not acquired the right under section 94 ERA 1996, and her unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed for lack of the necessary qualifying period. As unfair dismissal was the only complaint presented, the entire claim was dismissed. The judgment recorded no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claimant had not completed the qualifying period of continuous employment required by section 108(1) ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.108(1) ERA 1996 qualifying-period requirement
- s.94 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.