Claimant v Knightsbridge property services
Outcome
Individual claims
The claim was struck out because the claimant did not have the required two years' continuous service to bring an ordinary 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.
Facts
Mr Banfield brought a claim for unfair dismissal against Knightsbridge property services. He was employed by the respondent for less than two years. The judgment indicates there were other complaints beyond unfair dismissal, but these are not detailed in this particular judgment.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant did not meet the statutory two-year qualifying period required under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant was given an opportunity to provide reasons why the claim should not be struck out but failed to do so. The claimant's other complaints were unaffected.
Practical note
Ordinary unfair dismissal claims require two years' continuous service, and claims lacking this qualification will be struck out unless they fall within an exception such as automatically unfair dismissal.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2303425/2024
- Decision date
- 7 July 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- real estate
- Represented
- No
Employment details
- Service
- 2 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No