Claimant v BiP Solutions Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The claimant did not have the two years' service required under section 108(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and did not plead an automatic unfair dismissal claim for which the two year rule is disapplied. The Tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to hear this claim and it was struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success.
Facts
The claimant brought multiple complaints including unfair dismissal against the respondent. She did not have two years' service required for an ordinary unfair dismissal claim and did not plead an automatic unfair dismissal claim. At a case management hearing, the tribunal raised the jurisdictional issue and gave the claimant opportunity to comment. The claimant responded stating her dismissal claim was under the Equality Act not the Employment Rights Act, but did not address the service requirement issue.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim under rule 38(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospect of success. The claimant lacked the required two years' service under section 108(1) ERA 1996, did not plead automatic unfair dismissal, and made no submissions establishing reasonable prospects of success. The tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to hear this claim.
Practical note
Unfair dismissal claims require two years' qualifying service unless the claim falls within an automatic unfair dismissal category which disapplies this requirement, and claimants must specifically plead such exceptions.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 4106859/2024
- Decision date
- 24 September 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No