Mr C Bereanu v Opentrade Global Ltd and HM Revenue and Customs: 2203909/2020
JUDGMENT
(1) The unfair dismissal complaint is struck out.(2) The complaints brought against the second respondent are struck out.(3) The remaining complaints of race discrimination, notice pay, wages and holiday pay against the first respondent are unaffected and a preliminary hearing will be conducted to consider the case management steps which it shall be necessary to take.REASONS
[1]On 17 March 2021 the tribunal wrote to the parties to warn the claimant that it was proposing to strike out the(1) unfair dismissal complaint (because it appeared that he was not employed by the first respondent for at least two years as required under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and nor that any of the specific circumstances for which there is no requirement for qualifying service applied and he was not therefore entitled to bring such a complaint) and(2) the complaints brought against the second respondent (because it appeared that the claimant was neither employed nor engaged by the second respondent so that the tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider these complaints).[2]The claimant was ordered to write to the tribunal by 7 April 2021. In replying to the tribunal on 6 April 2021, the claimant failed to give any acceptable reasons why these complaints should not be struck out.[1]At a preliminary (case management) hearing on 21 May 2021 the claimant was given a strike out warning on the basis that his refusal to engage and cooperate with the tribunal in the case management of the claim was capable of amounting to unreasonable conduct for the purposes of rules 37(1)(b) and (c). The claimant was also ordered to provide further particulars of claim by 18 June 2021 and warned that if he failed to comply with this order then consideration would be given to striking out the claim (comprising of the complaints enumerated above) under rules 37 (b), (c) and (d). These warnings were reiterated and further explained in a Case Management Summary and Order dated 21 May 2021.[2]The claimant has failed to comply with this order. He has provided no explanation for this nor made any representations as to why the claim should not be struck out nor requested a hearing to make such representations.[3]The claim is therefore struck out under rules 37(b), (c) and (d).