Case 6034685/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Miss D Patterson v Freshstart Care Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 6034685/2025
- Decision date
- 4 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smail Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss D Patterson
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 found that the claimant had been employed by the respondent for less than two years.
The claimant had been given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but the tribunal found that she had not given an acceptable reason. The unfair dismissal complaint was therefore struck out. The judgment also states that the claimant's other complaints had been compromised through ACAS.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal complaint was struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and had not given an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were compromised through ACAS, but does not identify their claim types. | Settled | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.