Claimant v Cripps Utilities Ltd

The claim was struck out because the claimant did not have the required length of service under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which requires two years' continuous employment to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim.

The claim was struck out under rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Procedural Rules 2024 as it had no reasonable prospects of succeeding. The tribunal found the claim had no merit on its face.

The harassment related to age claim was struck out under rule 38(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospects of success. The tribunal determined the claim could not succeed even if all facts alleged were proven.

The claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the tribunal found the claimant was not an employee or worker of the respondent as defined in the Employment Rights Act 1996, which is a prerequisite for bringing a protected disclosure claim.

The claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the claimant was found not to be an employee or worker as defined in the Equality Act 2010, meaning the tribunal had no power to hear the claim.

The harassment claim related to race was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the claimant was not an employee or worker as required under the Equality Act 2010.

The victimisation claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the tribunal found the claimant was not an employee or worker as defined in the Equality Act 2010.

The arrears of pay claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the claimant was not found to be a worker as defined in the Employment Rights Act 1996, which is necessary to bring a claim for unlawful deduction of wages.

The claims for breaches of the Working Time Regulations 1998 were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the claimant was not an employee or worker as defined in those Regulations.