Mr J Mallory v II Platina Ltd: 2301355/2022
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 Tsamados Date: 20 May 2022 Case No: 2301355/2022 10.5 Reserved judgment with reasons – rule 62 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr J Mallory Respondent: Il Platina Ltd Heard at: London South ET, Croydon (by video) On: 27 November 2023 Before: Employment Judge Abbott Representation Claimant: no attendance Respondent: no attendance[1]The claim was listed for a final hearing, to be conducted by video, today at 10am. Neither party attended. I am satisfied that the notice of hearing was sent to the correct email addresses for both parties as included on the ET1 and ET3 forms. The Tribunal clerk left a message for the claimant on his mobile phone, but no response was received. I waited until 10:20am before abandoning the hearing.[2]On consideration of the file, there is no evidence of the claimant having engaged with this claim since it was brought in April 2022. No documents have been provided to the Tribunal pursuant to the directions made on 19 June 2023. The Tribunal’s pre-hearing check letter of 30 October 2023 was not responded to. It is evident that the claim has not been actively pursued. There is no material before the Tribunal that would make it possible to determine the claim today without the parties being present. Case No: 2301355/2022 10.5 Reserved judgment with reasons – rule 62[3]Rule 47 applies as the claimant has not attended the hearing. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the overriding objective is best served by dismissing the claim in accordance with that Rule.