Claimant v Arthur Rank Hospice Charity
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claimant did not have two years continuous employment, which is a qualifying requirement for unfair dismissal claims. The claim was struck out under Rule 38 on the ground that it had no reasonable prospect of success due to lack of jurisdiction.
The tribunal found the claimant did not have two years continuous employment, which is a qualifying requirement for redundancy payment claims. The claim was struck out under Rule 38 on the ground that it had no reasonable prospect of success due to lack of jurisdiction.
Facts
Ms Tsiricos brought claims for unfair dismissal and redundancy payment against Arthur Rank Hospice Charity. The respondent applied for strike out under Rule 38 on the ground that the claims had no reasonable prospect of success. At a preliminary hearing conducted by CVP, the tribunal considered whether the claimant had the required qualifying period of employment.
Decision
The tribunal found that the claimant did not have two years continuous employment and therefore the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the claims for unfair dismissal and redundancy payment. The respondent's application for strike out succeeded and the claims were struck out.
Practical note
Claimants must have two years continuous employment to bring claims for ordinary unfair dismissal and redundancy payment, and claims lacking this qualifying period will be struck out at a preliminary hearing for having no reasonable prospect of success.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6020194/2024
- Decision date
- 6 January 2026
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No