Case 8002352/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Lee McKerr v Vision Express (UK) Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 8002352/2025
- Decision date
- 11 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Donnell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Lee McKerr
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment addressed only Ms Lee McKerr's claim of unfair dismissal against Vision Express (UK) Ltd under s94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Employment Judge O'Donnell struck out that claim as having no reasonable prospect of success.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant did not have the two years' service normally required for the tribunal to hear an unfair dismissal claim under section 108(1) ERA. It also recorded that she did not advance a claim of automatic unfair dismissal for which the two-year rule is disapplied.
The possible strike-out under Rule 38(1)(a) was discussed with the claimant at a hearing on 9 January 2026, and she was given time under Rule 38(2) to make representations. No representations were received within the time specified in the order. The tribunal therefore struck out the unfair dismissal claim. The judgment expressly stated that Equality Act claims, including a claim that the dismissal amounted to unlawful discrimination, remained live and were unaffected by this judgment. No remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal claim under s94 Employment Rights Act 1996 was struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospect of success because the claimant did not have the required two years' service and did not advance an automatic unfair dismissal claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 108(1) ERA
- Rule 38(1)(a)
- Rule 38(2)
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.