Claimant v Secretary of State for the Home Office
Outcome
Individual claims
The claimant brought only an ordinary unfair dismissal claim but lacked the required two years' continuous service. She had only 15 months' service from 29 August 2023 to 16 December 2024. The claim form did not indicate any automatic unfair dismissal claim that would not require qualifying service, therefore the claim had no reasonable prospect of success.
Facts
The claimant was employed by the Home Office from 29 August 2023 to 16 December 2024, giving her approximately 15 months' service. She brought an unfair dismissal claim by ticking only the unfair dismissal box on her claim form. She did not attend the hearing listed to consider the respondent's strike-out application. The respondent's response had been submitted eight days late but the tribunal granted an extension of time.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the claim under rule 38(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. The claimant lacked the two years' qualifying service required for an ordinary unfair dismissal claim. The claim form did not indicate any automatic unfair dismissal claim that would not require qualifying service, and applying Moustache, the claim form did not 'shout out' any other basis for the claim.
Practical note
A claimant must have two years' continuous service to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim, and the claim form must clearly indicate if an automatic unfair dismissal claim (not requiring qualifying service) is being pursued.
Legal authorities cited
Case details
- Case number
- 6000345/2025
- Decision date
- 11 June 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- central government
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Service
- 1 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No