Claimant v Neil Topping trading as Tyne Insulation Supplies
Outcome
Individual claims
The claimant had less than 2 years' service and therefore did not meet the qualifying period required under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant failed to provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out.
This claim was not affected by the strike-out judgment and shall proceed to a full hearing on a date to be fixed.
This claim was not affected by the strike-out judgment and shall proceed to a full hearing on a date to be fixed.
Facts
The claimant was employed by the respondent for less than 2 years before termination of employment. The claimant brought claims for unfair dismissal, breach of contract, and unlawful deduction of wages. The respondent is a sole trader operating an insulation supplies business.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant lacked the required 2 years' continuous service under section 108 ERA 1996. The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out but failed to provide an acceptable reason. The breach of contract and wages claims were unaffected and will proceed to hearing.
Practical note
Even unrepresented claimants must meet the basic statutory qualifying criteria for unfair dismissal, and tribunals will strike out claims where the two-year service requirement is not met and no automatic unfair dismissal exception applies.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2407167/2024
- Decision date
- 9 January 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- construction
- Represented
- No
Employment details
- Service
- 2 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No