Claimant v Hoxton Hotel Operator Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant had less than two years continuous service as required by section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant failed to provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out despite being given the opportunity.
The discrimination claim relating to the claimant's dismissal being because of religion or belief was not affected by this judgment and remains to be determined.
Facts
Mr Mansare was employed by Hoxton Hotel Operator Limited for less than two years before his dismissal. He brought claims for unfair dismissal and discrimination because of religion or belief relating to his dismissal. The tribunal considered whether the unfair dismissal claim should be struck out due to insufficient qualifying service.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant lacked the necessary two years continuous service required by section 108 ERA 1996. The claimant was given the opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out but failed to provide an acceptable reason. The religion discrimination claim was unaffected and remains live.
Practical note
Ordinary unfair dismissal claims require two years continuous service, and lack of qualifying service is a jurisdictional bar leading to strike out, though discrimination claims arising from the same dismissal can proceed regardless of length of service.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6001737/2025
- Decision date
- 18 June 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- hospitality
- Represented
- No
Employment details
- Service
- 2 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No