C Wiggins v Cheeky Charlie Ovens Ltd: 6012107/2024
JUDGMENT
The Claimant’s claim of unfair dismissal 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. Therefore the Claimant is not entitled to bring such a complaint.[4]The Tribunal wrote on 3 October 2024 giving to the Claimant an opportunity to provide reasons why the complaint of unfair dismissal should not struck out.[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. Approved by Employment Judge Burge 16 January 2025 Judgment sent to the parties on 17 February 2025 Case Number: 6012107/2024 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mrs. C Wiggins Respondent: Cheeky Charlie Oven Company Ltd RECONSIDERATION JUDGMENT The Respondent’s application dated 2 October 2025 for reconsideration of the judgment sent to the parties on 18 September 2025 is refused.[1]There is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked.[2]The timetable of the hearing was managed appropriately in accordance with Rule 41 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.[3]The issues were confined, and the Respondent cross examined the Claimant between 11:41 and 13:13. The parties were reminded of the need to manage the time available to them for cross examination and were also reminded of the issues for determination. The hearing finished at approximately 15:15 after oral submissions. Therefore, the significant majority of the hearing time was spent with evidence and submissions to the extent that there was not sufficient time to deliberate and give an oral judgment. The Respondent asked the Claimant questions related to notice.[4]The judgment was considered based on the evidence and the reasoning was explained in the reasons. I do not consider the judgment to be unsafe. Approved by: