Cases2301160/2025

Claimant v InvictaK9 Ltd

20 August 2025Before Employment Judge AbbottLondon Southon papers

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalstruck out

The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint as having no reasonable prospects of success because the claimant commenced employment as an employee on 1 April 2024, meaning he did not have the requisite two years' continuous employment to bring an unfair dismissal claim. Prior to this date he worked as a self-employed contractor.

Wrongful Dismissalnot determined

This claim for breach of contract in respect of notice pay was not struck out and remained to be determined at a future hearing.

Unlawful Deduction from Wagesnot determined

This claim was not struck out and remained to be determined at a future hearing.

Holiday Paynot determined

This claim for unpaid holiday pay was not struck out and remained to be determined at a future hearing.

Facts

The claimant worked for the respondent as a self-employed contractor from at least 2020, then became an employee on 1 April 2024. After his dismissal, he brought claims for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, unlawful deduction of wages, and unpaid holiday pay. The respondent applied to strike out all claims, particularly highlighting that the claimant lacked the two years' continuous employment required for unfair dismissal. The claimant valued his total claim at £24,750 plus a possible ACAS uplift and injury to feelings.

Decision

The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim as having no reasonable prospects of success due to insufficient qualifying service, but allowed the other claims to proceed. The respondent then applied for costs. The tribunal awarded costs of £1,500 against the claimant, finding the unfair dismissal claim was objectively flawed from the outset, the claimant had been repeatedly warned by the respondent, and was represented by an experienced lay representative who should have appreciated the fundamental difficulty.

Practical note

Even with lay representation, claimants who pursue claims that are objectively hopeless from the outset despite repeated warnings face significant costs risk, though tribunals will moderate awards having regard to financial means and proportionality.

Adjustments

ACAS uplift+25%

The Schedule of Loss referenced a possible 25% ACAS uplift

Legal authorities cited

Yerrakalva v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council [2012] ICR 420Radia v Jefferies International Ltd [2020] IRLR 431

Statutes

Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 Rule 82Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 Rule 76Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 Rule 74

Case details

Case number
2301160/2025
Decision date
20 August 2025
Hearing type
costs
Hearing days
1
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
other
Represented
No
Rep type
solicitor

Claimant representation

Represented
No