Cases2407707/2023

Claimant v AO

9 January 2024Before Employment Judge Holmeson papers

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalstruck out

The claimant did not have the required two years continuous service to bring an unfair dismissal claim under s.108 ERA 1996. The tribunal gave the claimant opportunities to provide reasons why the claim should not be struck out but no acceptable reason was provided. The claim was therefore struck out for lack of jurisdiction.

Facts

The claimant brought an unfair dismissal claim against his former employer AO. However, the claimant had less than two years continuous employment with the respondent. The tribunal wrote to the claimant on 23 August and 24 November 2023 giving him opportunities to explain why the claim should not be struck out, but he failed to provide an acceptable reason.

Decision

The tribunal struck out the claim because the claimant lacked the statutory two years qualifying service required under s.108 ERA 1996 to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. Despite being given opportunities to respond, the claimant provided no acceptable reason why the claim should proceed.

Practical note

Claimants must have at least two years continuous service to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim, and claims lacking this jurisdictional requirement will be struck out on the papers if no acceptable explanation is provided.

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.108

Case details

Case number
2407707/2023
Decision date
9 January 2024
Hearing type
strike out
Hearing days
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Name
AO
Sector
other
Represented
No

Claimant representation

Represented
No