Claimant v Malmaison Hotel Du Vin Exeter
Outcome
Individual claims
The claimant was employed for less than two years and therefore does not meet the qualifying period requirement under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant failed to provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out.
The judgment notes that the claimant will still be able to argue that his dismissal was an act of race discrimination and that such a claim is unaffected by the dismissal of the unfair dismissal claim. This claim remains live.
Facts
Mr Trecha was employed by Malmaison Hotel Du Vin Exeter for less than two years. He brought claims including unfair dismissal and race discrimination. The tribunal held a strike-out hearing to determine whether the unfair dismissal claim could proceed given his short service.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant did not meet the two-year qualifying period 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. The tribunal confirmed that other claims, including the race discrimination claim, remain unaffected.
Practical note
Unfair dismissal claims require two years' continuous employment, but discrimination claims (such as race discrimination relating to dismissal) have no such qualifying period and can proceed regardless of length of service.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6015075/2024
- Decision date
- 6 June 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- hospitality
- Represented
- No
Employment details
- Service
- 2 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No