Claimant v Sarah Louise Packwood
Outcome
Individual claims
The complaint was dismissed because the Claimant had less than two years continuous service at the time of her dismissal, which is the qualifying period required to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The complaint was struck out as an abuse of process because the Claimant already has a judgment in her favour dated 6 September 2023 in the County Court covering the same unpaid wages and notice pay claims.
The complaint for notice pay was struck out as an abuse of process because the Claimant already has a judgment in her favour dated 6 September 2023 in the County Court covering the same claims.
Facts
The Claimant brought claims for unfair dismissal and unpaid wages/notice pay against three Respondents, including a dissolved company (Nourish Olney Ltd). The Claimant had less than two years' service at the time of dismissal. The Claimant had already obtained a County Court judgment in her favour dated 6 September 2023 for unpaid wages and notice pay. The Respondents did not attend the hearing.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim because the Claimant did not have the required two years' qualifying service. The claims for unpaid wages and notice pay were struck out as an abuse of process due to the existing County Court judgment. The dissolved company was removed from the proceedings.
Practical note
Claimants cannot pursue the same claims in both the County Court and Employment Tribunal - doing so will result in the later claim being struck out as an abuse of process.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3309373/2023
- Decision date
- 11 April 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- other
- Represented
- No
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No