Outcome
Individual claims
Claim struck out as claimant did not have the requisite two years continuous service under s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996 and no exception applied. Claimant failed to respond to warning about strike out or provide evidence of sufficient service or applicable exception.
Facts
Mr Roche brought an unfair dismissal complaint against Convatec Limited. The claim form indicated he had less than two years service with the respondent. The tribunal warned him about a potential strike out due to insufficient qualifying service under s.108 ERA 1996. Despite being given the opportunity, the claimant did not respond or present any argument that he had the required two years service or that any exception applied.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because the claimant did not have the requisite two years continuous employment required under s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996 and no exception applied. The claimant failed to respond to the strike out warning or provide any argument as to why the claim should proceed.
Practical note
Self-represented claimants must be alert to jurisdictional requirements, particularly the two-year qualifying period for ordinary unfair dismissal claims, and respond to tribunal warnings about potential strike outs.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6013675/2024
- Decision date
- 12 February 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Name
- Convatec Limited
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- No
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No