Claimant v Metropolitan Housing Trust
Outcome
Facts
The claimant worked as a Bank Care and Support Worker for housing providers from December 2021 to January 2024. The respondent applied to strike out her claim arguing she lacked two years' continuous service due to gaps in her work, and disputed whether she was an employee. The claimant testified she was on annual leave during the periods of absence, requesting leave verbally from her manager.
Decision
The tribunal refused the strike-out application under rule 37(1)(a), finding that disputed factual issues about employment status meant the claim could not be said to have no reasonable prospect of success. On continuity, the tribunal found that if the claimant was an employee, her absences were temporary cessations due to holiday under ERA s.212(3)(b), giving her two years' continuous service.
Practical note
Strike-out applications are inappropriate where employment status and continuity turn on disputed factual issues requiring oral evidence, and periods of annual leave count as temporary cessations preserving continuity of employment.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3303644/2024
- Decision date
- 12 December 2024
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- housing
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Bank Care and Support Worker
- Service
- 2 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No