Claimant v Sussex Air Conditioning & Heat Pumps Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
Claimant withdrew the claim at preliminary hearing after confirming he had not been employed for two years, meaning he lacked the requisite qualifying service for unfair dismissal protection under s.108 ERA 1996.
Claimant withdrew the claim at preliminary hearing after confirming he had not been employed for two years, meaning he lacked the requisite qualifying service for statutory redundancy pay under s.155 ERA 1996.
Facts
The claimant brought claims including unfair dismissal and failure to pay redundancy payment against his former employer, an air conditioning and heat pumps company. At a preliminary hearing, the respondent challenged the claimant's length of service, asserting he had been employed for less than two years. The claimant confirmed the respondent's dates of employment were correct and that he had not been employed for the requisite two-year qualifying period.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal and redundancy payment claims on withdrawal at the preliminary hearing. The claimant withdrew these claims after accepting he lacked two years' continuous employment, which is required for both statutory rights. The claimant's remaining claims, which were not specified in this judgment, remain listed for a full merits hearing.
Practical note
Claimants must verify their length of continuous employment before bringing claims for unfair dismissal or statutory redundancy pay, as the two-year qualifying period is strictly applied and without it, these claims will fail regardless of merit.
Case details
- Case number
- 6003808/2024
- Decision date
- 27 June 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- construction
- Represented
- No
Employment details
- Service
- 2 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No