Cases3304191/2024

Claimant v Ocado Central Services Limited

28 April 2025Before Employment Judge Suzanne PalmerBury St Edmundsremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalstruck out

The Claimant did not have two years continuous employment with the respondent. As a result, the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim, as two years qualifying service is required for an ordinary unfair dismissal claim under the Employment Rights Act 1996.

Wrongful Dismissalwithdrawn

The claim for notice pay was withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed by the tribunal on withdrawal at the preliminary hearing.

Otherstruck out

The claimant's claim described as 'bullying and injustice' did not identify any cause of action for which the employment tribunal has jurisdiction. The tribunal found it showed no recognisable legal claim and dismissed it accordingly.

Facts

Ms Kissi brought claims against Ocado Central Services Limited for unfair dismissal, notice pay, and what she described as 'bullying and injustice'. The matter came before the tribunal at a preliminary hearing to determine jurisdiction. The claimant appeared in person while the respondent was represented by counsel. It was established that the claimant had less than two years continuous employment with the respondent.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed all claims at the preliminary hearing. The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the claimant did not have the required two years qualifying service. The notice pay claim was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. The 'bullying and injustice' claim was dismissed as it showed no recognisable cause of action for which the tribunal had jurisdiction.

Practical note

Claimants must have at least two years continuous employment to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim, and claims framed as general grievances like 'bullying and injustice' will be dismissed unless they identify a specific legal cause of action within the tribunal's jurisdiction.

Legal authorities cited

Case details

Case number
3304191/2024
Decision date
28 April 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
retail
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Claimant representation

Represented
No