Claimant v Sodexo Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The claimant lacked the 2 years' service required by section 108(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to qualify for the right to claim unfair dismissal and did not rely on any exceptions. The tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons or request a hearing but the claimant failed to do so. The claim was struck out under rule 37(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospect of success.
Facts
The claimant brought a claim for unfair dismissal against Sodexo Limited. It was common ground that the claimant lacked the two years' service normally required by section 108(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to qualify for the right to claim unfair dismissal. The claimant did not appear to rely on any of the exceptions to that rule. On 3 September 2024 the tribunal issued a strike out warning and gave the claimant until 17 September 2024 to provide written reasons or request a hearing to explain why the claim should not be struck out.
Decision
The claimant failed to give an acceptable reason why the claim should not be struck out or to request a hearing. The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim under rule 37(1)(a) on the grounds that it had no reasonable prospect of success due to the claimant's lack of qualifying service. An earlier judgment dated 24 September 2024 which dismissed the entire claim was revoked under rule 72 as it was issued in error.
Practical note
Claimants must have at least two years' continuous service to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim unless they can rely on one of the statutory exceptions, and failure to respond to strike-out warnings will result in the claim being struck out.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8000403/2024
- Decision date
- 17 June 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Name
- Sodexo Limited
- Sector
- hospitality
- Represented
- No
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No