Claimant v Pet Healthcare Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The claimant had less than two years continuous service (approximately May to September 2023) and therefore did not meet the statutory qualifying period under s.108 ERA 1996. Despite being given the opportunity, the claimant failed to present any argument that an exception applied, such as automatic unfair dismissal or whistleblowing.
Facts
The claimant was employed by Pet Healthcare Ltd from approximately May 2023 to September 2023, a period of less than five months. She brought a claim for unfair dismissal. The tribunal wrote to her on 13 December 2024 asking if she was alleging whistleblowing or other exceptions to the two-year qualifying period, giving her until 27 December 2024 to respond. No response was received.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim on the basis that the claimant did not have the required two years continuous employment under s.108 ERA 1996, and had failed to present any argument that an exception applied despite being given the opportunity to do so.
Practical note
Unrepresented claimants who fail to engage with tribunal correspondence on jurisdictional threshold issues such as qualifying service will have their claims struck out even where they object in principle.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3300941/2024
- Decision date
- 19 February 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- No
Employment details
- Service
- 5 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No