Claimant v The Gamekeepers Pub, Woodlands
Outcome
Individual claims
The claim was struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) for having no reasonable prospect of success. The claimant did not have the requisite two years' service required under section 108 ERA 1996 to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and failed to respond to the tribunal's request for reasons why the claim should not be struck out.
Facts
The claimant brought a claim including unfair dismissal against a pub employer. The tribunal identified that the claimant appeared to have less than two years' service, which is required under section 108 ERA 1996 to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal wrote to the claimant on 23 February 2025 giving him until 3 March 2025 to explain why the claim should not be struck out. The claimant did not respond or provide any explanation.
Decision
Employment Judge Woodhead struck out the unfair dismissal complaint under Rule 38(1)(a) on the basis it had no reasonable prospect of success. The claimant lacked the requisite two years' service and failed to provide any reason why the claim should proceed despite being given the opportunity to do so. The judgment noted this did not affect other complaints in the claim form.
Practical note
Unrepresented claimants must respond to tribunal correspondence warning of strike-out, particularly where they lack the basic qualifying criteria such as two years' service for unfair dismissal claims.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6001824/2025
- Decision date
- 2 June 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- hospitality
- Represented
- No
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No