Mr D Bryan v Roc Technologies Ltd: 1404204/2022
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 Smail Date: 9 May 2023 Judgment sent to the Parties on 18 May 2023 For the Tribunal Office Case No: 1404204/2022 10.2 Judgment - rule 61 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr D Bryan Respondent: ROC Technologies Limited Heard at: Remotely by Cloud Video Platform (CVP) On: 4th October 2023 Before: Employment Judge Lambert Representation Claimant: No attendance Respondent: Miss G Lane, Employee Relations Manager[1]The Claimant’s claims are dismissed due to his lack of attendance, in accordance with Rule 47 of the ET Rules 2013 and further and/or additionally in accordance with Rule 37(1)(d) for failing to actively pursue the claim as evidence by his failure to comply with Case Management Orders.[2]The Claimant failed to attend an earlier Preliminary Hearing before EJ King on 12th July 2023. EJ King issued a Case Management Order on 14th July 2023 re-listing this matter for today. The Claimant was ordered to file a Case Management Agenda in advance of this hearing.[3]The Claimant failed to attend. He did not file a Case Management Agenda. The Clerk emailed the Claimant to ascertain his intention, but he did not respond. There was no telephone number provided on the Claim Form.[4]In the light of the Claimant’s failure to attend 2 Preliminary Hearings and to provide any reasons why he did not, his claims were dismissed. Case No: 1404204/2022 10.2 Judgment - rule 61