Miss Z Petho v Promotional Logistics Ltd (In Administration): 2602591/2018
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 Hutchinson Date: 11 March 2019 Case No 2602591.2018 Page 1 of 2 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Ms Z Petho Respondent: Promotional Logisitics (in administration) Considered on the papers On: 4 October 2021 Before: Employment Judge Adkinson sitting alone The whole of the claimant’s claim is struck out.[2]The parts of the claimant’s claim / respondent’s response that have been struck out are: 2.1. scandalous or vexatious (Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure rule 37(1)(a)); 2.2. have no reasonable prospect of success (Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure rule 37(1)(a));[3]On 22 April 2021 Employment Judge Ahmed conducted a closed preliminary hearing. As set out in his order, he noted the claimant had applied for permission to the relevant court to pursue her claim against the respondent. In fact the respondent’s administrator and the claimant agreed she should have permission to claim unfair dismissal. No agreement was reached to claim race discrimination (which includes harassment and victimisation for the purposes of these reasons) and no order seeking permission was sought subsequently. He therefore required the claimant to set out why the claim for race discrimination should not be struck out.[4]Her other claim for unfair dismissal has been struck out already.[5]The claimant’s reply of 28 September 2021 sets out what she believes to be the relevant acts that are discriminatory.[6]Her reply however does not deal with the fundamental problem that she has neither the permission of the respondent’s administrators nor of the competent court to issue, yet alone, continue proceedings against the respondent for race discrimination. Case No 2602591.2018 Page 2 of 2[7]The order confirming the respondent’s administrator’s consent was made on 18 August 2020. She has taken no steps since then to secure permission to pursue her claims for race discrimination. She was told in April 2019 of the need for permission.[8]Therefore, the claim cannot proceed. The claimant has had now over 2 years to secure permission either by court order or by consent. That has not happened. Indeed, she agreed before the Court she should have permission only in relation to unfair dismissal.[9]The lack of permission means the claim cannot succeed. Therefore, it is struck out