Claimant v Octopus Energy Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The claimant had less than two years' service and therefore did not meet the qualifying period required under s.108 ERA 1996 to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. The claimant failed to provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out.
Facts
The claimant was employed by Octopus Energy Limited for less than two years and brought a complaint of unfair dismissal. The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out but failed to provide an acceptable reason. The judgment notes that other complaints brought by the claimant are not affected.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because the claimant did not have the required two years' continuous service under s.108 ERA 1996. The claimant's other complaints remain unaffected and will proceed.
Practical note
Claimants must have at least two years' continuous employment to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim, and claims lacking this qualifying period will be struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6016838/2024
- Decision date
- 24 January 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- energy
- Represented
- No
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No