Claimant v Cranfield Solutions Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant lacked the two years' continuous employment required under s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996. None of the exceptions to the usual rule applied, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider the complaint.
A claim for one week's notice pay arising from alleged repudiatory breach of contract was identified in the claim form (box 9.2) and was unaffected by the strike-out judgment. The tribunal made separate directions for this claim to proceed.
Facts
The claimant Ms El-Raie brought an unfair dismissal claim against Cranfield Solutions Limited after resigning from her employment. The tribunal issued a strike-out warning on 2 July 2025 because the claimant appeared to lack the two years' continuous employment required for unfair dismissal claims. The claimant provided detailed written representations but did not request a hearing.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant did not have two years' continuous employment as required under s.108 ERA 1996, and no exceptions applied. However, the judge identified that the claim form also contained a potential claim for one week's notice pay arising from alleged repudiatory breach of contract, which was unaffected by the strike-out.
Practical note
Claimants without two years' service cannot bring ordinary unfair dismissal claims, but may still pursue breach of contract claims for notice pay where they resign due to repudiatory breach.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6020979/2025
- Decision date
- 16 September 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- other
- Represented
- No
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No