Cases6000434/2025

Claimant v Super Smart Services

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalstruck out

Claimant lacked the required two years qualifying service under s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996 and failed to provide acceptable reason why complaint should not be struck out.

Facts

Mr Haddock was employed by Super Smart Services for less than two years before his dismissal. He brought a claim for unfair dismissal along with other unspecified complaints. The tribunal gave him an opportunity to explain why the unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out due to insufficient service.

Decision

The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because the claimant had less than two years service and therefore did not meet the statutory qualifying period under s.108 ERA 1996. The claimant's other complaints remained unaffected by this judgment.

Practical note

Qualifying service of two years is a jurisdictional requirement for ordinary unfair dismissal claims and lack of such service results in strike out, though other claims may proceed.

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.108

Case details

Case number
6000434/2025
Decision date
16 July 2025
Hearing type
strike out
Hearing days
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
other
Represented
No

Employment details

Service
2 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No