Claimant v Capital Cleaning (Kent) Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The claim was struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service, failing to meet the qualifying period required under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant was given an opportunity to provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out but failed to do so.
Facts
Laura Zoe Micoud brought an unfair dismissal claim against Capital Cleaning (Kent) Limited. The claimant had been employed for less than two years. The tribunal considered whether the claim should be struck out for lack of qualifying service.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the claim because the claimant did not have the required two years' continuous service under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant was given an opportunity to provide reasons why the claim should not be struck out but failed to provide an acceptable reason.
Practical note
Unfair dismissal claims require a minimum of two years' continuous service under section 108 ERA 1996, and claims lacking this qualifying period will be struck out unless an exception applies.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6004571/2025
- Decision date
- 14 May 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- No
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No