Claimant v HM Prison and Probation Service
Outcome
Individual claims
The claim was struck out because the claimant had less than two years' continuous service, which is required under Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. The claimant failed to provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out despite being given the opportunity to do so.
This claim was not affected by the strike-out judgment and remains live for future determination.
This claim was not affected by the strike-out judgment and remains live for future determination.
Facts
Aida Dinu was employed by HM Prison & Probation Service for less than two years before her dismissal. She brought claims of unfair dismissal, race discrimination, and sex discrimination. The tribunal considered whether the unfair dismissal claim should be struck out for lack of qualifying service.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant had less than two years' continuous service required under s.108 ERA 1996. The claimant failed to provide an acceptable reason why the claim should proceed despite being given the opportunity. The race and sex discrimination claims remain live.
Practical note
Unfair dismissal claims require two years' continuous service unless the dismissal falls within an automatically unfair category, and tribunals will strike out claims lacking the statutory qualifying period.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6028188/2025
- Decision date
- 10 December 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- No
Employment details
- Service
- 2 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No