Mr J Khazaei v Amazing Grace ST Thomas Ltd: 2301853/2024
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. Approved by Employment Judge Curtis Date: 22 January 2025 Case No: 2301853/2024 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr. J Khazaei Respondent: Amazing Grace St Thomas Ltd Heard at: London South via CVP On: 28 July 2025 Before: Employment Judge D Wright Tribunal Member H Carter Tribunal Member J Bird Representation Claimant: Did not attend Respondent: Ms. Singh[1]The claim is not being actively pursued and is struck out under Rule 38(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.[2]The Claimant did not attend the final hearing listed for today. Our clerk attempted to reach him several times by email and telephone but received no response.[3]We noted that there was a pattern of the Claimant failing to pursue the claim. He had provided a schedule of loss in line with the directions, but despite chasers by the Respondent had failed to provide a list of documents, a witness statement or to otherwise engage in discussions about the bundle.[4]Following the Respondent’s written strike out application in early July 2025 he did then agree the bundle and provide a short witness statement. However, he failed to respond to the Tribunal’s ‘Pre-Hearing Check’ letter.[5]In light of the above and his unexplained absence from the hearing today, we found that the Claimant was no longer actively pursuing the claim.[6]We found that this opened the door to strike out under Rule 38(1)(d). We considered the proportionality point and decided that due to the Claimant’s previous conduct the balance fell in favour of granting the renewed strike out application. Case No: 2301853/2024