Claimant v In Depth Services (Cleaning) Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The claim was presented outside the applicable time limit and it was reasonably practicable to present in time. Additionally, the claimant had less than two years' service which is required under Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to bring an unfair dismissal claim.
The claim was presented outside the applicable time limit and the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented the claim within time.
Facts
Mr Williams brought claims for unfair dismissal and unauthorised deduction from wages against his former employer, a cleaning services company. He had been employed for less than two years. The claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing held in Liverpool on 22 October 2025, where he was unrepresented. The respondent was represented by a solicitor, Mr A O'Neill.
Decision
Employment Judge McCarthy dismissed both claims in full. The unfair dismissal claim failed on two grounds: it was presented outside the time limit when it was reasonably practicable to present in time, and the claimant lacked the requisite two years' service under s.108 ERA 1996. The unauthorised deduction from wages claim was also presented out of time when it was reasonably practicable to present in time.
Practical note
Even procedural hearings on time limits and jurisdictional issues can definitively end claims, particularly where claimants lack the minimum two-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal and fail to attend to provide reasons why claims should proceed.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6016107/2025
- Decision date
- 1 November 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Service
- 2 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No