Miss A Anderson v Halo Hair, Beauty & Wellness and R Corrigan: 8000569/2024
JUDGMENT
The claim is struck out under rule 37 of the Rules contained in Schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 on the grounds that the claim has no reasonable prospects of success in terms of rule 37(1)(a).REASONS
[1]On 11 June 2024, the Tribunal wrote to the claimant and asked her to provide further information in support of her claim for unfair dismissal given her lack of 2 years’ qualifying service.[2]On 15 June 2024, the claimant provided additional detail but failed to give any reason why she is entitled to claim unfair dismissal in circumstances where she does not have qualifying service.[3]On 24 June 2024 the Tribunal explained to the claimant as no other type of claim was raised in the claim form, the Tribunal would consider striking out the claim under Rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure. The claimant was invited to write to the Tribunal by 3 July 2024 to explain why the claim should not be struck out or to request a hearing. In the alternative, the claimant was invited to apply to amend the claim to include another complaint which could be considered by the Tribunal.[4]The claimant has failed to give an acceptable reason why such a judgment should not be made or to request a hearing and has made no application to amend. The Tribunal therefore strikes out the claim on the basis that it has no reasonable prospect of success.