Mr M Mir v S&A 50 Ltd: 2600746/2023
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 M Butler Date: 28 July 2023[1]The matter was listed for a final hearing at 14:00 on 13 August 2024. The claimant did not attend the hearing. The respondent’s representative attended.[2]Pursuant to Rule 47, if a party fails to attend or be represented at the hearing the Tribunal may dismiss the claim. The claimant did not attend the hearing nor was any communication received from him to explain his absence.[3]The claimant has not been represented in the proceedings. The claimant was provided by the Tribunal with a Notice of Final Hearing, dated 13 July 2024, informing him of today’s hearing. In response to that he provided the Tribunal with his email address and telephone number, which were the same as that already on file. On 7 August 2024, the Tribunal emailed the claimant with joining instructions for the hearing today.[4]After the claimant did not attend the hearing today, the Tribunal attempted to contact him, using both the telephone number and email provided. The Tribunal did not receive a response. Case No: 2600746/2023[5]I am satisfied that the claimant had notice of today’s hearing and has chosen not to attend or participate. I consider the appropriate course is to dismiss the claim as I do not have sufficient evidence on which I can determine the claim in the claimant’s absence. I have considered the overriding objective in Rule 2 in reaching this conclusion.