Mrs J Pollock v Adare International Ltd: 2600659/2022
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 Adkinson Date: 29 March 2022[1]The Claimant’s application for reconsideration of the Judgment sent to the parties on 5 April 2022 is granted and, accordingly, the Judgment striking out the claim of unfair dismissal is revoked.[2]The claim of unfair dismissal is dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant.[3]The claimant’s other claims proceed unaffected by this judgment.[1]On 2 March 2022, the claimant presented an ET1 claim alleging, amongst other claims, a claim of unfair dismissal. Case number: 2600659/2022 2[2]On 10 March 2022, the claimant wrote to the tribunal giving notice of her withdrawal of that claim because she had been reinstated.[3]This notice was considered by the tribunal at a time before service of the claim form on the respondent. Directions were given to issue the standard letter on withdrawal followed by a dismissal judgment for the unfair dismissal element of the claim only. That letter was sent as directed on 5 April 2022 but, unfortunately, instead of the claim being dismissed upon withdrawal under rule 52 of the 2013 Rules of Procedure, it was stuck out on the basis that the claimant did not have the necessary two years’ qualifying service. Not only was this not the form of judgment directed, in any event the claimant did appear to have sufficient qualifying service to have brought such a claim.[4]On 11 April 2022 the claimant asked for this error to be corrected. The matter was referred to me in duty work and I have treated the claimant’s email as an application to reconsider the judgment. It is not in the interests of justice to seek further views on this matter and I have proceeded to deal with it on the papers. Whilst the ultimate outcome remains the same in its practical effect, the original judgment was a public judgment and the claimant is entitled to have matters accurately stated in the record. .................................................................