Unfair Dismissal Claim Struck Out by Employment Tribunal
📌 In brief
An employment tribunal dismissed a worker's case for automatically unfair dismissal because it lacked merit. The decision was based on the claim having no reasonable chance of success according to the law.
⚖️ Legal holding
An employment tribunal may strike out a claim under Section 47(B) if it has no reasonable prospect of success.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant's automatically unfair dismissal and other claims were struck out for lack of merit.
📜 Headnote Official document
The employment tribunal struck out the claimant's automatically unfair dismissal and other claims, finding they had no reasonable prospect of success under Section 47(B) Employment Rights Act 1996.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Struck Out
Case No: 3303829/2024 10.1 Judgment – no hearing - rule 60 February 2018
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: [redacted]
Respondent: [redacted] Watford Employment Tribunal -heard remotely by CVP On: 18 February 2026
Before: Employment Judge Daley
Representation Claimant: [redacted]
Respondent: [redacted]
JUDGMENT
1. Having heard from the claimant in person, and respondent’s representative Ms [COUNSEL].
2. The claim of Automatically Unfair Dismissal is struck out under Section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and 3. Under Section 47(B) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is struck out pursuant to The Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024, rule 38(1)(a) because it has no reasonable prospect of success.
4. The hearing listed for 23 to 26 March 2026 is vacated.
Approved by:
Employment Judge Daley
Date 18.02.2026
JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON
1 May 2026
.....................................................................................
......................................................................................
FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE
Note Written reasons will not be provided unless a written request is presented by either party within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision.
Public access to employment tribunal decisions
Judgments and reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online at www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the claimant(s) and respondent(s) in a case.
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- Employment Tribunal Unfair Dismissal and Victimisation Claims Struck Out by Employment Tribunal
- Employment Tribunal Claim Dropped: Employment Tribunal Rules on Non-Appearing Party
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Strikes Out Unfair Dismissal Claim, Orders Deposit for …
- Employment Tribunal Claim Struck Out for Not Following Court Orders
- Employment Tribunal Claimant's Unfair Dismissal Claim Struck Out by Employment Tribunal
- Employment Tribunal Employment Claim Dismissed Due to Non-Attendance
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Strikes Out Unfair Dismissal Claim Due to Statutory Bar
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Strikes Out Unfair Dismissal Claims
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Strikes Out Unfair Dismissal Claim for Being Out of Tim…
A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
❌ Tends to be rejected
- Claimant failed to attend scheduled hearing.
- Claim was not presented within three months of termination.
- Claimant did not have requisite service period for unfair dismissal claim.
- Employer's actions were justified under the law and met statutory criteria.
- Claimant did not comply with Employment Tribunal case management orders.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Employment Tribunal struck out the claimant's automatically unfair dismissal claim.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the claimant's automatically unfair dismissal claim had reasonable prospects of success.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to strike out the claim, finding that the claim lacked reasonable prospects of success.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the claimant's automatically unfair dismissal claim had no reasonable prospects of success.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the person who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation may also have their claim struck out if it lacks reasonable prospects of success.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify the evidence or documents that mattered.