Claimant v Shepherd Neame Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal struck out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success because the claimant had less than two years' continuous service at the date of dismissal and therefore lacked the qualifying service required by section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The claimant's complaints regarding the disciplinary process, withholding of evidence, and procedural failures were dismissed as they relate to the fairness of the dismissal and cannot be maintained as standalone claims without a valid unfair dismissal claim.
Facts
Mr Moore was dismissed by Shepherd Neame Limited and brought a claim for unfair dismissal along with complaints about the disciplinary process, withholding of evidence, and procedural failures. The respondent applied to strike out the claims on the basis that the claimant had less than two years' continuous service at the date of dismissal. The matter was heard at a preliminary hearing.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim under Rule 38(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospect of success because the claimant lacked the two years' qualifying service required by section 108 ERA 1996. The related complaints about the disciplinary process were dismissed as they could not stand alone without a valid unfair dismissal claim.
Practical note
Employees must have at least two years' continuous service to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim, and procedural complaints about dismissal cannot be maintained as standalone claims without qualifying service.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6009709/2024
- Decision date
- 17 April 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- hospitality
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No