Claimant v Hydro Cleansing Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The claimant did not have the required two years' continuous service to bring an unfair dismissal claim under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant was employed for less than two years and failed to provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out despite being given the opportunity to do so.
Facts
Mr Cekala brought an unfair dismissal claim against Hydro Cleansing Limited. He was employed by the respondent for less than two years. The tribunal noted he had been given the opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out but failed to provide an acceptable reason.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the claim because the claimant did not meet the statutory requirement of two years' continuous employment to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant failed to provide sufficient reasons to prevent the strike out.
Practical note
Claimants must have at least two years' continuous service to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim, and failure to meet this qualifying period will result in the claim being struck out.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6002937/2025
- Decision date
- 17 July 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- other
- Represented
- No
Employment details
- Service
- 2 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No