M Da Silvia v Staffline and BMW: 6009502/2025
JUDGMENT
[1]30/05/2025 FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE Notes Reasons for the judgment having been given orally at the hearing, written reasons will not be provided unless a request was made by either party at the hearing or a written request is presented by either party within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision. If written reasons are provided they will be placed online. All judgments (apart from judgments under Rule 51) and any written reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online at https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the claimants and respondents. If a Tribunal hearing has been recorded, you may request a transcript of the recording. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, you will have to pay for it. If a transcript is produced it will not include any oral judgment or reasons given at the hearing. The transcript will not be checked, approved or verified by a judge. There is more information in the joint Presidential Practice Direction on the Recording and Transcription of Hearings and accompanying Guidance, which can be found here: www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/employment-rules-and-legislation-practice-directions/REASONS
[1]The original claim form purported to include complaints other than unfair dismissal. Those complaints were rejected for the reasons given at the time. The application for reconsideration of that decision was rejected by order approved by EJ Anstis on 13 May 2025 and sent to parties on 30 May 2025.[2]By the same order, the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to contact the Tribunal by 10 June 2025 to make representations or to request a hearing, as to why the claim should not be struck out because it had no reasonable prospects of success. In particular, EJ Anstis having given judgment in relation to the Claimant’s interim relief application made an order which stated: Under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 employees are not entitled to bring complaints of unfair dismissal unless they were employed for two years or more except in certain specific circumstances which do not seem to apply in the claimant’s case (based on her claim form) Case No: 6009502/2025 Page 2 of 2[3]The claimant has failed to make representations in writing and has failed to ask for a hearing. It is appropriate and proportionate to strike out the unfair dismissal claim. The entire claim is therefore struck out. Approved by: Employment Judge Quill Date: 24 August 2025[1]I previously wrote to the respondents indicating that I was proposing to revoke the judgment for the reasons given in the Claimant’s application. I have noted the responses.[2]The judgment is revoked because there was a crucial factual error. I believed that the Claimant had not responded to the strike out warning when, in fact, they had done so. Approved by: