Claimant v Ultramist T/a Ultrasafe
Outcome
Individual claims
The claim was struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and therefore did not qualify for a statutory redundancy payment under section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out but did not provide an acceptable reason.
Facts
The claimant, L Cheung, was employed by Ultramist T/a Ultrasafe for less than two years. The employment ended and the claimant brought a claim for redundancy payment along with other complaints. The tribunal considered whether the claimant had the qualifying service to bring a redundancy payment claim.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the redundancy payment claim because the claimant had less than two years' continuous employment and therefore did not meet the statutory qualifying period under section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant's other complaints remain unaffected by this judgment.
Practical note
Employees must have at least two years' continuous service to qualify for a statutory redundancy payment, and claims without the qualifying period will be struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6018965/2025
- Decision date
- 21 July 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- other
- Represented
- No
Employment details
- Service
- 2 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No