Outcome
Individual claims
Claim struck out because the claimant did not have the required two years continuous service under s.108 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
Ms L Eccles brought a claim for unfair dismissal against Halo Hair Group. She was employed by the respondent for less than two years. The tribunal gave her an opportunity to provide an acceptable reason why the claim should not be struck out, but she failed to do so.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant did not have the required two years continuous service under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and therefore was not entitled to bring these proceedings.
Practical note
Unrepresented claimants may not appreciate the two-year qualifying period for ordinary unfair dismissal claims and tribunals will strike out such claims where the service requirement is not met.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6014313/2025
- Decision date
- 23 June 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Name
- Halo Hair Group
- Sector
- other
- Represented
- No
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No