Claim Dismissed: No Attendance, Insufficient Service Period
📌 In brief
An Employment Tribunal dismissed a worker's case because they did not attend the hearing, and their period of service was too short (less than two years) to qualify for unfair dismissal under UK law.
⚖️ Legal holding
A claimant must have at least two years' continuous employment to qualify for unfair dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
📖 What the law says
This section outlines the criteria for determining whether the dismissal of an employee is fair or unfair. It places the burden on the employer to provide the reason for the dismissal and to prove that the reason falls within certain categories, including the employee's capability or qualifications, conduct, redundancy, or a breach of duty or restriction.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant's claims were dismissed for non-attendance and lack of qualifying service period.
📜 Headnote Official document
The claimant's claims for unfair dismissal and related compensation were dismissed due to non-attendance at the hearing and insufficient continuous employment of less than two years as required by law.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Dismissed
Case Number: 6040494/2025
1 of 3
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: [redacted]
Respondent: [redacted]
(in [NAME])
Heard at: [COMPANY] (by CVP)
On:
24 March 2026
Before: Employment Judge M [NAME]
For the Claimant: [redacted] For the Respondent: [redacted]
The judgment of the Tribunal is as follows:
1. The claimant’s claim for unfair dismissal is dismissed.
2. Pursuant to Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024:
2.1. the claimant’s claim for wages is dismissed.
2.2. the claimant’s claim for unpaid notice pay is dismissed.
2.3. the claimant’s claim for unpaid accrued untaken holiday pay is dismissed.
2.4. the claimant’s claim under section 30, Employment Act 2002 is dismissed.
REASONS
3. This case was listed for a final hearing commencing at 10.00 am today.
Case Number: 6040494/2025
2 of 3
4. No response had been received from the respondent which is not surprising given their status. However, it was expected that the claimant would attend.
5. The claimant had not arrived at the hearing by 10.30 am.
6. The claimant had provided no documentation in advance of the hearing. He had not provided a witness statement.
7. I am satisfied that all relevant documentation had been correctly served on the claimant at the address he gave in his claim form.
8. Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 states:
108 Qualifying period of employment.
(1) Section 94 does not apply to the dismissal of an employee unless he has been continuously employed for a period of not less than two years ending with the effective date of termination.
9. At the effective date of termination, the claimant had been employed for around 16 months. In the circumstances he does not qualify to bring a for unfair dismissal and that claim. Is dismissed for that reason.
10. Rule 47 of the 200 Rules is as follows:
Non-[RESPONDENT]
47. If a party fails to attend or to be represented at a hearing, the Tribunal may dismiss the claim or proceed with the hearing in the absence of that party. Before doing so, it must consider any information which is available to it, after any enquiries that may be practicable, about the reasons for the party’s absence.
11. The claimant failed to attend today without any communication to the Tribunal and in the circumstances I have dismissed his claims under Rule 47.
Employment Judge M [NAME]: 24 March 2026
Note Reasons for the judgment having been given orally at the hearing, written reasons will not be provided unless a request was made by either party at the hearing or 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 All judgments (apart from judgments under Rule 51) and any written reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online at https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the claimant(s) and respondent(s).
Case Number: 6040494/2025
3 of 3
Recording and Transcription Please note that if a Tribunal hearing has been recorded you may request a transcript of the recording, for which a charge may be payable. If a transcript is produced it will not include any oral judgment or reasons given at the hearing. The transcript will not be checked, approved or verified by a judge. There is more information in the joint Presidential Practice Direction on the Recording and Transcription of Hearings, and accompanying Guidance, which can be found here: https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/employment-rules-and-legislation-practice-directions/
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- Employment Tribunal Unfair Dismissal Claim Rejected Due to Capability Issues
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rejects Unfair Dismissal Claim
- Employment Tribunal Home Office Wins Disability Discrimination Case at Employment Tribunal
- Employment Tribunal Unfair Dismissal Claim Rejected Due to Lack of Continuous Service
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rejects Unfair Dismissal and Breach of Contract Claims
- Employment Tribunal Claimant's Employment Claims Dismissed by Employment Judge Lancaster
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
- The claimant does not have at least two years of continuous employment.
- The employer is not required to provide a fair reason for dismissal if the criteria for unfairness are not met.
- The case involves issues unrelated to unfair dismissal, such as wages or holiday pay.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The claimant's claims were dismissed due to non-attendance and insufficient employment period.
Who was involved?
A worker (claimant) against an employer (respondent).
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the claimant failed to attend the hearing as required by law and had not worked for at least two years.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Employment Rights Act 1996 s.98 and Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 Rule 47.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The claimant's non-attendance and insufficient employment period were critical in dismissing their claims.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
Against the claimant, as all claims were dismissed.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
If you miss your hearing and have worked less than two years, your unfair dismissal claim may be dismissed.
What evidence or documents mattered?
None provided by the claimant; documentation was not served properly.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, but it's advisable to seek legal advice first.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is highly recommended to consult with a qualified solicitor for such cases.