Mr K Harborne v Powerleague Group Ltd: 1301721/2022
JUDGMENT
The complaint that the claimant was unfairly dismissed is struck out.REASONS
[2]Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have not less than two years service to make an unfair dismissal complaint.[3]The claimant was employed by the respondent for less than two years.[4]Therefore the claimant is not entitled to bring such a complaint.[5]The claimant has failed to give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out.[6]Accordingly, the complaint of unfair dismissal is struck out. The claimant’s other complaints are not affected by this judgment. Employment Judge Gaskell Date: 21 April 2022 Case Number: 1301721/2022 PHCM Order (NEW August 2020) 1 of 2 August 2020 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr Keith Harborne Respondent: Powerleague Five Limited[1]The correct respondent is “Powerleague Five Limited”. I dismiss Mr Jeremy Male from the proceedings and substitute the correct party.[2]Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 provides: “Non-attendance 47. If a party fails to attend or to be represented at the hearing, the Tribunal may dismiss the claim or proceed with the hearing in the absence of that party. Before doing so, it shall consider any information which is available to it, after any enquiries that may be practicable, about the reasons for the party’s absence.”[3]The claimant has failed to attend the scheduled Preliminary Hearing, having been properly notified in advance by a notice of hearing on 3rd November 2022. This notice was sent by post to the address for the Claimant on the ET1 form and is in line with the Claimant’s stated preferred method of communication. Case Number: 1301721/2022 PHCM Order (NEW August 2020) 2 of 2 August 2020[4]On 17th February 2023 the Claimant acknowledged receipt of an email from the Respondent’s representative confirming the preliminary hearing on 21st February 2023 and attaching the bundle for that hearing.[5]The Tribunal clerk has contacted the mobile telephone number given by the Claimant in the ET1 claim. The mobile number was unanswered. A voice message was left; but has not been responded to.[6]Having considered all of the information available to the tribunal, I exercise my power under Rule 47 to dismiss the Claimant’s claim forthwith in its entirety.