Claimant v State Oil Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint because the claimant did not have sufficient continuous service at the effective date of termination to bring an unfair dismissal claim.
The tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim because the claimant did not have sufficient continuous service at the effective date of termination to qualify for a redundancy payment.
The complaint was not presented within the applicable time limit. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented the claim in time, and therefore the claim was dismissed.
Facts
Mr Bradsell brought claims of unfair dismissal, redundancy payment, and breach of contract against State Oil Limited. This was a preliminary hearing to determine jurisdictional issues. The tribunal found that the claimant did not have sufficient continuous service to bring the statutory claims, and that the breach of contract claim was presented outside the applicable time limit.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. The unfair dismissal and redundancy pay claims were dismissed for lack of qualifying continuous service. The breach of contract claim was dismissed as out of time, with the tribunal finding it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented it in time.
Practical note
Self-represented claimants must ensure they meet qualifying service requirements before bringing unfair dismissal or redundancy claims, and must comply strictly with time limits for contractual claims.
Case details
- Case number
- 2502159/2024
- Decision date
- 28 April 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- energy
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No