Claimant v Mr Clive Thornicroft
Outcome
Individual claims
Claimant had less than two years' service and therefore did not meet the statutory qualifying period under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Claimant failed to explain why his case fell within any exception to the qualifying period despite being given opportunity to respond.
This claim continues and has not been determined in this judgment.
This claim continues and has not been determined in this judgment.
Facts
The Claimant was employed by the Respondent for less than two years before dismissal. The Claimant brought claims of unfair dismissal, age discrimination, and disability discrimination. The tribunal wrote to the Claimant on 13 January 2025 inviting him to explain why the unfair dismissal claim should not be struck out given the lack of qualifying service. The Claimant failed to respond by the deadline and when he eventually responded on 18 August 2025, failed to provide an acceptable reason or to show his case fell within any exception to the qualifying period.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim on the basis that the Claimant did not have the minimum two years' service required under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and failed to demonstrate that any exception applied. The age and disability discrimination claims continue.
Practical note
Unfair dismissal claims require two years' continuous service unless the dismissal falls within specific statutory exceptions; unrepresented claimants must respond to tribunal correspondence and provide evidence if claiming an exception applies.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6010324/2024
- Decision date
- 26 August 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- —
- Represented
- No
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No