Outcome
Individual claims
The claimant had less than two years' service and therefore did not meet the qualifying period required under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant failed to provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out.
Facts
Mr Watkins was employed by Matsudai Ramen Ltd for less than two years before his dismissal. He brought an unfair dismissal complaint along with other unspecified complaints. The tribunal noted he had the opportunity to provide reasons why the unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out but failed to do so.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because the claimant did not meet the two-year qualifying period required under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant's other complaints remain unaffected by this judgment.
Practical note
Unrepresented claimants often fail to understand the two-year qualifying period for ordinary unfair dismissal claims, and tribunals will strike out such claims where the claimant cannot establish qualifying service or an exception to the requirement.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6000739/2025
- Decision date
- 27 June 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- hospitality
- Represented
- No
Employment details
- Service
- 2 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No