M R Hussain v University of Bradford: 6001421/2023
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.[1]The claimant’s complaint of harassment is struck out for the reasons below.[2]The claimant’s disability discrimination complaints are also struck out, having failed to pay a deposit by 24 November 2023.[1]By orders with reasons sent to the parties on 9 November 2023, the Tribunal gave the Claimant an opportunity to make representations or to request a hearing, as to why the harassment claim should not be struck out. Further, the Tribunal ordered a deposit be paid as a condition of pursuing disability discrimination complaints.[2]On 17 November 2023 the claimant emailed an account which was no different or further to the matters discussed in the case management hearing. He did not show cause why his harassment complaint was arguable.[3]On 23 November 2023 the claimant applied for an extension of time to pay the deposit in this case, the day before the time for payment expired, explaining he was struggling to find the funds. Means were discussed at the hearing on 27 October 2023. In the light of the failure to set out further information explaining how the complaints are arguable, I do not consider it would be a wise exercise of discretion to enable more time to pay the deposit. The claimant has been aware since the 27th of October that this money would be needed should he wish to pursue his complaints. The parties are best served by certainty and finality in these proceedings.[1]Rule 72 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 provides that the Employment Judge shall consider any application to reconsider a Judgment.[2]The claimant sent an email saying, “please re-open my case” and seeking the Tribunal’s advice (which cannot be given). This correspondence has been referred to me, a Judge considering it is an application to reconsider my judgment striking out the claims.[3]The application is out of time, without content, and does not address any aspect of the reasons given in the previous Judgment. The application has no reasonable prospects of resulting in the Judgment being varied or revoked and the application is refused.