Claimant v Harringtons Hair
Outcome
Individual claims
Claim struck out because claimant failed to make representations in response to tribunal letter dated 24 June 2024 explaining that under s.108 ERA 1996, claimants must have two years' service to bring unfair dismissal claims except in specific circumstances. Claimant did not respond to show why the claim should proceed.
Facts
Miss Elliott brought an unfair dismissal claim against Harringtons Hair. The tribunal wrote to her on 24 June 2024 identifying that she appeared to lack the two years' continuous service required under section 108 ERA 1996 to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim. She was given an opportunity to make representations as to why the claim should not be struck out.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the claim because Miss Elliott failed to respond to the tribunal's letter or make any representations explaining why the claim should proceed despite the apparent lack of qualifying service under s.108 ERA 1996.
Practical note
Claimants must respond to tribunal correspondence identifying jurisdictional issues, particularly regarding the two-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal, or risk having their claims struck out for non-pursuit.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3303650/2024
- Decision date
- 23 January 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Name
- Harringtons Hair
- Sector
- other
- Represented
- No
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No