Case 3314984/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr Joicey, non-legal in-house representative — 2024
- Case reference
- 3314984/2023
- Decision date
- 17 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bloch KC
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 5 December 2024, Employment Judge Bloch KC struck out the claimant's unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal held that the claimant did not have the required two years' continuous service to bring such a claim, and therefore the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it.
The judge noted that the claimant had been given an earlier direction to explain why the claim should not be struck out, but he did not provide the requested information. With the assistance of an Arabic interpreter, the claimant said that he had worked through agencies before becoming directly employed by the respondent, but he accepted that his employer during those earlier periods was the agency rather than the respondent.
The tribunal accepted the respondent's position that the agency periods could not be added to the claimant's continuous service with the respondent. The offer of employment letter relied on by the respondent was dated 5 September 2023 and did not show continuity extending back before that date. The judge recorded that the claimant admitted he had not been employed by the respondent for two continuous years, and the unfair dismissal claim was therefore struck out.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant did not have the required two years' continuous service; the tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.