Claimant v Tribal EMEA Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Withdrawn by claimant as he had less than two years' qualifying service, which is required to bring an unfair dismissal claim.
The claim was recast as breach of implied term of trust and confidence to circumvent the two-year qualifying rule for unfair dismissal. The tribunal found it had no reasonable prospect of success and struck it out, as the alleged loss of opportunity to apply for other jobs could not support such a claim.
The claim under TUPE Regulation 7(1) was dismissed for want of jurisdiction, as employees with less than two years' service cannot bring such claims. The tribunal also found that even if it had jurisdiction, the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. A late attempt to recast it under ERA 1996 s.104 was rejected as no amendment had been made.
The claimant's case was unclear, claiming 7.8 days unpaid holiday without explanation and without deducting an additional day paid by the respondent. The tribunal found a genuine dispute requiring examination and declined to strike it out, instead making an unless order requiring clarification within two weeks.
Facts
The claimant brought claims including unfair dismissal, breach of contract (recast as breach of implied term of trust and confidence), breach of TUPE Regulations, and holiday pay. He had less than two years' qualifying service. The unfair dismissal claim was withdrawn. At a preliminary hearing on 12 September 2025, the respondent applied for strike-out. The claimant persisted with the remaining claims despite cost warning letters sent on 4, 8, 9 and 10 September 2025. The claimant was represented by solicitors (Portways) and counsel.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the TUPE claim for want of jurisdiction (employees with less than two years' service cannot bring Regulation 7(1) claims) and alternatively for no reasonable prospect of success. The breach of trust and confidence claim was struck out as a transparent attempt to circumvent the two-year qualifying rule with no reasonable prospect of success. The holiday pay claim continued, subject to an unless order requiring clarification. The tribunal awarded costs of £4,381.08 against the claimant for unreasonably pursuing hopeless claims despite warnings, declining to take his financial circumstances into account.
Practical note
Legally represented claimants who persist with claims that have no reasonable prospect of success after clear cost warnings face significant costs liability, even if impecunious, particularly where claims appear designed to circumvent statutory qualifying periods.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2301243/2025
- Decision date
- 30 September 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- technology
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister