Novocastrian

Case Summary

The claimant claimed a redundancy payment. The tribunal found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years, which is below the two-year minimum requirement under section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claim was struck out as the claimant had no legal right to a redundancy payment.

The claim was struck out because the claimant had been employed for less than two years, and section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires employees to have been employed for two years or more to have the right to a redundancy payment.

• •Whether claimant has right to redundancy payment
• •Whether claimant had two years' qualifying employment

each EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Conor Mcnay Respondent: Novocastrian JUDGMENT The claim for a redundancy payment is struck out. REASONS 1. The claimant claims the right to a redundancy payment. 2. Section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 says that employees do not have the right to a redundancy payment unless they have been employed for two years or more. 3. The claimant was employed by the respondent for less than two years. 4. Therefore, the claimant does not have the right to a redundancy payment. 5. The claimant was given the opportunity to explain why the claim for a redundancy payment should not be struck out but has not given an acceptable reason. 6. Accordingly, the claim for a redundancy payment is struck out. The claimant’s other complaints are not affected by this judgment. Approved by Employment Judge Aspden Date: 2 April 2026