Claimant v Vitality Health Insurance Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The claimant had less than two years' service and therefore did not meet the qualifying service requirement under s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant was given the opportunity to provide reasons why the claim should not be struck out but failed to give an acceptable reason.
This claim is proceeding. The judgment notes that the claimant's other complaints including the claim that there was a discriminatory constructive dismissal are not affected by the strike-out of the ordinary unfair dismissal claim.
The judgment indicates other discrimination complaints remain ongoing and are not affected by this strike-out judgment. The specific protected characteristic is not identified in this procedural judgment.
Facts
The claimant was employed by Vitality Health Insurance Limited for less than two years. She brought multiple claims including ordinary unfair dismissal and discriminatory constructive dismissal. The respondent or tribunal raised the issue that she lacked the qualifying service for an ordinary unfair dismissal claim.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the ordinary unfair dismissal claim because the claimant had less than two years' service as required by s.108 ERA 1996. The claimant was given the opportunity to explain why it should not be struck out but failed to provide an acceptable reason. Her other claims, including discriminatory constructive dismissal, continue.
Practical note
Ordinary unfair dismissal claims require two years' qualifying service under s.108 ERA 1996, but discrimination claims and automatically unfair dismissal claims do not have this requirement and can proceed in parallel.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6024147/2025
- Decision date
- 17 September 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- financial services
- Represented
- No
Employment details
- Service
- 2 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No