Venture capital investors have backed a workplace dispute firm called Valla before an expected leap in claims from Labour’s decision to strengthen employment rights.
Danae Shell, co-founder and chief executive of the Edinburgh-based firm, has raised £2 million from new investors Ada Ventures, Active Partners and Portfolio Ventures. Existing investors include the Resolution Foundation, the social justice think tank.
Shell, 43, will use the cash to expand Valla’s suite of services, which enable employees on median to low wages to represent themselves in workplace disputes, from initial meetings through to an employment tribunal.
She said that as the government brought in new employment rights from the autumn of 2026, such as unfair dismissal from day one, more employees would feel able to challenge their employers rather than move on.
“More people will go from ‘I don’t think that was fair’ to ‘I think I can do something about this’, whereas now there is a common misperception that if you have worked for a company for under two years, you don’t have any rights and can be sacked for any reason,” she said.
“That is not true. You have lots of rights but you don’t have unfair dismissal and constructive dismissal rights, which are very important. The fact that Labour is lowering that down to a day one [right] … will address that misconception. It will increase the number of people inquiring about whether something was illegal or not and whether they can do something about it.”
Valla is aiming to help those on a median national wage of £37,000 a year and below. More than 12,000 people have registered to use its services since its launch in 2022. Shell said: “Our platform helps people resolve their legal issues where they could not access justice through traditional means.”
Some services, such as meeting notes, are free while others are paid-for services. The typical outlay to settlement is about £200, Shell said. To go all the way through to a ruling in an employment tribunal costs about £500. A grievance letter is £10; access to a legal professional for an hour costs £90; support to complete an employment tribunal form and have it reviewed costs £100.
“Most people settle and they are able to represent themselves at that settlement conversation with their employer,” Shell said. “The feedback we get back from our users is, even if they decide they are going to leave [the grievance] that they felt so much better that they made an informed choice.”
She is a member of the national user group for the employment tribunal service in England and Wales and said agencies such as Acas, the dispute resolution service, and the tribunals themselves were “all anticipating an increase in inquiries for constructive and unfair dismissal”. Civil servants working for the tribunal service expect the employment rights legislation to “significantly impact” the service next year, the minutes of the last meeting of the user group in January show.
Shell said that employers, including small and medium-sized firms, were already supported with employment law advice, either through trade bodies or other paid-for services. In contrast, employees struggled to address employment disputes using the current system, she said. With the decline in union representation, they typically turned to Citizens Advice and Acas for assistance, but this was limited in scope. Traditional law firms could be too expensive.
Shell gave the example of a dispute that results in the employee not being paid their salary, perhaps £3,000 that month. “What happens is they phone up a law firm and ask, can you help with this? And the law firm says, I’m really sorry but it’s probably going to cost you £5,000 for us to support you with it. The math just doesn’t work.”
Valla also creates tribunal support groups so employees can talk to others going through the process, which can be lengthy — claims being lodged now in some tribunals will be heard in 2027, with the first stage preliminary hearing set in six to eight months. “It is an isolating experience,” Shell said.
