Claimant v Fortress Operations Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
Struck out for lack of jurisdiction. Claimant did not have the requisite two years of qualifying service under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, having worked for the respondent for just under one year. Claimant provided no evidence as to why the tribunal had jurisdiction despite being given opportunities to address this.
Struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospect of success. The claim was approximately 18 months out of time and the claimant had no reasonable prospect of establishing that it was just and equitable to extend the time limit. The claim was also extremely unclear despite multiple opportunities to clarify.
Struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospect of success. The claim was approximately 18 months out of time and the claimant had no reasonable prospect of establishing that it was just and equitable to extend the time limit. The claim was also extremely unclear despite multiple opportunities to clarify.
Struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospect of success. The claim was approximately 18 months out of time and the claimant had no reasonable prospect of establishing that it was just and equitable to extend the time limit. The claim was also extremely unclear despite multiple opportunities to clarify.
Struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospect of success. The claim was approximately 18 months out of time and the claimant had no reasonable prospect of establishing that it was just and equitable to extend the time limit. The claim was also extremely unclear despite multiple opportunities to clarify.
Struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospect of establishing grounds to extend the time limit for bringing the claim. The claim was approximately 18 months out of time and the claimant provided no explanation for the delay despite multiple opportunities.
Struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospect of success. The claim was approximately 18 months out of time and was extremely unclear despite multiple opportunities to clarify.
Facts
The claimant was dismissed in approximately January 2022 after working for the respondent for just under one year. The respondent stated the dismissal was because the claimant did not provide evidence of a visa or permission to work in the UK beyond January 2022. The claimant did not dispute this. The claimant brought multiple claims including unfair dismissal, discrimination, harassment, whistleblowing and unlawful deduction of wages approximately 18 months after dismissal. Despite multiple case management orders and opportunities to clarify her claims, the claimant failed to provide coherent particulars or address the time limit issues.
Decision
The tribunal struck out all claims. The unfair dismissal claim was struck out for lack of jurisdiction as the claimant did not have two years qualifying service. The remaining claims were struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospect of success, primarily because they were 18 months out of time and the claimant provided no explanation for the delay despite multiple opportunities. The claims were also extremely unclear and the claimant failed to attend the strike out hearing despite being ordered to do so.
Practical note
Unrepresented claimants must engage meaningfully with case management orders and provide coherent particulars of their claims, and significant unexplained delay in bringing claims will result in strike out even where the tribunal shows considerable patience.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3311072/2024
- Decision date
- 9 December 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- other
- Represented
- Yes
Employment details
- Service
- 1 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No