Claimant v Motorcycle World LLP
Outcome
Individual claims
Withdrawn by claimant during the preliminary hearing. The claimant confirmed she was not claiming any sums other than redundancy payment and notice pay.
Claim for 'other payments' withdrawn by claimant during the preliminary hearing. The claimant confirmed she was not claiming any sums other than redundancy payment and notice pay.
Struck out under rule 38(1)(a) for having no reasonable prospect of success. The claimant provided no particulars relating to any redundancy situation and no information indicative of any redundancy situation as required by s.139 ERA 1996.
Notice pay claim struck out under rule 38(1)(a) for having no reasonable prospect of success. For notice pay to succeed there must be a dismissal and the claimant failed to establish circumstances amounting to dismissal within s.95 ERA 1996.
Struck out under rule 38(1)(a) for having no reasonable prospect of success. The claimant did not set out circumstances which could be taken as 'dismissal' within s.95 ERA 1996. The claimant alleged she was dismissed without notice but provided no information suggesting words of dismissal were communicated to her. The respondent's evidence was that she resigned. The claimant denied both that her father dismissed her and that there was any agreement to end employment.
Facts
The claimant worked for a motorcycle dealership as service manager then sales executive from June 2022 to June 2024. Her father, Mr Okhovati, was general manager. The claimant alleged she was dismissed without notice or warnings. The respondent contended she resigned. An email from the claimant's father to payroll on 19 June 2024 stated the claimant's last day would be 30 June 2024. The claimant said her father told her another shareholder wanted her gone and gave her two weeks to find a new job, but denied being dismissed by her father or resigning herself.
Decision
The tribunal struck out all claims for having no reasonable prospect of success. The claimant failed to establish any circumstances amounting to 'dismissal' within s.95 ERA 1996, providing no information that words of dismissal were communicated to her and disavowing that her father dismissed her. Without a dismissal, the unfair dismissal and notice pay claims could not succeed. The redundancy claim failed as no redundancy situation was particularised. The wage deduction claims were withdrawn.
Practical note
A claimant must clearly establish the statutory basis for dismissal under s.95 ERA 1996; where a claimant alleges dismissal but provides no particulars of how or by whom dismissal was communicated, and denies both dismissal by the employer and resignation, the claim has no reasonable prospect of success even where there is family employment dynamics.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6006588/2024
- Decision date
- 2 July 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Service Manager / Sales Executive
- Service
- 2 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No