Claimant v Water Direct
Outcome
Individual claims
The claimant was employed by the respondent for less than two years and therefore does not meet the statutory qualifying period required to bring an unfair dismissal claim. The claimant failed to give an acceptable reason why this complaint should not be struck out.
The claimant was employed by the respondent for less than two years and therefore does not meet the statutory qualifying period required to claim a redundancy payment. The claimant failed to give an acceptable reason why this complaint should not be struck out.
Facts
The claimant brought claims for unfair dismissal and a redundancy payment against his employer, Water Direct. The claimant's employment lasted less than two years. The judgment notes that other complaints brought by the claimant were not affected by this strike-out decision.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal and redundancy payment claims because the claimant lacked the necessary two years' qualifying service required by statute. The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the claims should not be struck out but failed to provide an acceptable reason.
Practical note
Claims for unfair dismissal and statutory redundancy payments require at least two years' continuous service, and procedural fairness requires giving claimants an opportunity to explain why claims should not be struck out before doing so.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3305592/2024
- Decision date
- 8 September 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Name
- Water Direct
- Sector
- other
- Represented
- No
Employment details
- Service
- 2 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No