Claimant v Hazelcast UK Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claimant lacked the required two years' qualifying service for ordinary unfair dismissal. His attempt to rely on s.104 ERA (assertion of statutory right) failed because he alleged future infringement of rights during a redundancy consultation, not that he had already been dismissed. Following Spaceman v ISS Mediclean, the tribunal held that s.104(1)(b) requires an allegation that a right has been infringed, not that it may be infringed in future. There is no statutory right to a fair redundancy process separate from unfair dismissal. Struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success.
The claimant argued his grievance of 26 November 2024 was a protected act under s.27 Equality Act 2010 because it mentioned harassment and abuse by senior executives. The tribunal found the grievance made no reference to the Equality Act, no protected characteristic, and did not fall within s.27(2) (bringing proceedings, giving evidence, doing anything for purposes of or in connection with the Act, or alleging a contravention). The tribunal has no jurisdiction over standalone harassment claims under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success.
The claimant stated at the outset of the hearing that he no longer relied upon the breach of contract claim.
The claimant had initially brought a claim for misrepresentation, but stated at the outset of the hearing that he no longer relied upon this claim.
Facts
The claimant was employed by Hazelcast UK Ltd for less than two years. He was placed at risk of redundancy and attended consultation meetings on 22 and 25 November 2024. On 26 November 2024 he raised a grievance complaining of a 'sham redundancy' and abusive behaviour by senior executives. He was dismissed on 27 November 2024. He brought claims for unfair dismissal (arguing his dismissal was for asserting statutory rights under s.104 ERA) and victimisation (arguing his grievance was a protected act). The case was converted to a preliminary hearing to consider strike out or deposit order.
Decision
The tribunal struck out both claims as having no reasonable prospect of success. The unfair dismissal claim failed because the claimant lacked two years' service and s.104 ERA did not apply—following Spaceman v ISS Mediclean, the claimant's grievance alleged future infringement of rights during a redundancy process, not that he had already been dismissed. The victimisation claim failed because the grievance made no reference to the Equality Act or any protected characteristic and did not constitute a protected act under s.27.
Practical note
A grievance complaining about unfairness in an ongoing redundancy process before dismissal does not constitute an allegation of infringement of statutory rights under s.104 ERA, nor does a complaint of general harassment or abuse amount to a protected act under s.27 Equality Act without reference to the Act or protected characteristics.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6004999/2025
- Decision date
- 8 October 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Hazelcast UK Ltd
- Sector
- technology
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No