Claimant v Mega Resources Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The claim was struck out because the claimant did not have the required 2 years' continuous employment qualifying service under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the claim as the claimant was dismissed during her extended probation period after only 5 months of employment.
Facts
The claimant was employed by the respondent between March and August 2024, a period of approximately 5 months. She was dismissed during her extended probation period and brought a claim for unfair dismissal amongst other complaints. Employment Judge Hutchings wrote to the claimant on 24 March 2025 advising that the tribunal believed it did not have jurisdiction due to insufficient qualifying service and invited representations. The claimant responded on 6 April 2025 explaining the basis of her claim but did not address the qualifying service issue.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim on the papers without a hearing. Employment Judge Hunt determined that the claim could not proceed because the claimant did not meet the statutory requirement of 2 years' continuous employment under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the claim and it had no reasonable prospects of success.
Practical note
Unfair dismissal claims require 2 years' continuous employment qualifying service, and claims lacking this can be struck out on jurisdictional grounds even where the claimant is unrepresented and fails to understand the legal requirement.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3311308/2024
- Decision date
- 15 September 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- other
- Represented
- No
Employment details
- Service
- 5 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No