Cases6000414/2025

Claimant v Mitie

26 March 2025Before Employment Judge LeithScotlandon papers

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalstruck out

The claimant did not have the required two years continuous service under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. The claimant failed to provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out despite being given the opportunity to do so.

Facts

Emmanuel Olupeka was employed by Mitie for less than two years. He brought a complaint of unfair dismissal along with other complaints. The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim on the basis that he lacked the qualifying service period required by statute.

Decision

The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because the claimant had less than two years continuous service as required by section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant was given the opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out but failed to provide an acceptable reason. The claimant's other complaints remain unaffected.

Practical note

Ordinary unfair dismissal claims require two years continuous service, and claims lacking this qualifying period will be struck out even where other claims may proceed.

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.108

Case details

Case number
6000414/2025
Decision date
26 March 2025
Hearing type
strike out
Hearing days
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Name
Mitie
Sector
professional services
Represented
No

Employment details

Service
2 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No