Cases6003860/2024

Claimant v Malmaison Trading Limited

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalstruck out

The claimant had less than two years continuous service and therefore did not meet the statutory qualifying period required by section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant failed to provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out.

Facts

The claimant was employed by Malmaison Trading Limited for less than two years. He brought a complaint of unfair dismissal along with other unspecified complaints. The respondent or tribunal raised the issue of qualifying service and the claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out.

Decision

The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim on the basis that the claimant did not have the required two years continuous employment to bring such a claim under section 108 ERA 1996. The claimant's other complaints were unaffected by this judgment.

Practical note

Unfair dismissal claims require two years continuous service unless the dismissal falls within an automatically unfair category, and claims lacking qualifying service will be struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success.

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.108

Case details

Case number
6003860/2024
Decision date
26 March 2025
Hearing type
strike out
Hearing days
1
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
hospitality
Represented
No

Employment details

Service
2 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No