Cases2401994/2025

Claimant v Royal Mail

15 October 2025Before Employment Judge KM Rosson papers

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalstruck out

The claimant had less than two years' service and therefore did not meet the qualifying period required by section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant failed to provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out.

Holiday Paynot determined

This claim was not affected by the strike out of the unfair dismissal claim and will proceed to a hearing.

Facts

The claimant H McPhilbin was employed by Royal Mail for less than two years before being dismissed. The claimant brought a claim for unfair dismissal and holiday pay. The tribunal considered whether the claimant met the qualifying service requirement for unfair dismissal claims.

Decision

The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant did not have the requisite two years' continuous service required by section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant failed to provide an acceptable reason why the claim should not be struck out. The holiday pay claim will proceed separately.

Practical note

Claimants must have at least two years' continuous service to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim, and claims lacking this qualifying period will be struck out unless there is an automatic unfair dismissal exception.

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.108

Case details

Case number
2401994/2025
Decision date
15 October 2025
Hearing type
strike out
Hearing days
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
logistics
Represented
No

Claimant representation

Represented
No