Claimant v Mountain Warehouse
Outcome
Individual claims
Claimant did not have two years continuous service required under s.108 ERA 1996. Despite being given opportunity to respond to proposed strike out and deadline of 26 July 2024, claimant failed to present any argument that he had sufficient service or that an exception applied. Claim struck out for lack of qualifying service.
Facts
The claimant brought an unfair dismissal complaint against Mountain Warehouse. The claim form indicated that the claimant had been employed for less than two years. The tribunal sent a warning of possible strike out on 12 July 2024, giving the claimant until 26 July 2024 to respond and explain whether he had qualifying service or whether an exception applied. The claimant failed to respond either before or after the deadline.
Decision
Employment Judge Quill struck out the unfair dismissal claim on the basis that the claimant did not have the required two years continuous service under s.108 ERA 1996, and the claimant failed to respond to the opportunity to argue otherwise or identify any applicable exception. Since this was the only claim, the entire case was struck out.
Practical note
Unrepresented claimants must ensure they have qualifying service for unfair dismissal claims and must respond to tribunal warnings or risk strike out.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3303558/2024
- Decision date
- 11 February 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- No
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No