Claimant v Still Life Residential Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The claimant had less than two years' continuous service and therefore did not meet the qualifying requirement under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. The claimant failed to provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out.
Facts
The claimant brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against his former employer, Still Life Residential Ltd. The claimant had been employed for less than two years. The judgment notes that other complaints brought by the claimant remain unaffected by this decision.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because the claimant did not have the required two years' continuous service as mandated by section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out but failed to provide an acceptable reason.
Practical note
Ordinary unfair dismissal claims require two years' qualifying service, and claims lacking this fundamental jurisdictional requirement will be struck out even where other complaints may proceed.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3200443/2024
- Decision date
- 4 September 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- real estate
- Represented
- No
Employment details
- Service
- 2 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No