Employment Tribunal Dismisses Race Discrimination Claim for Lack of Qualifying Service
📌 In brief
In this case, the Employment Tribunal dismissed a worker's race discrimination claim after it was withdrawn by the worker. Other claims were struck out because the worker did not have enough time with their employer to qualify under UK law. The decision highlights the importance of qualifying service for certain employment claims.
⚖️ Legal holding
An employee must have at least two years' continuous employment to bring a claim for unfair dismissal or redundancy payment under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant's race discrimination claim was dismissed and other claims were struck out due to lack of qualifying service.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Employment Tribunal dismissed a claimant's race discrimination claim upon withdrawal and struck out other claims due to insufficient qualifying service. The claimant had less than two years of continuous employment, disallowing claims for unfair dismissal or redundancy payment.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Struck Out
Case Number: 6018638/2025
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: [redacted]
Respondent: [redacted]
The judgment of the tribunal is that: 1. The claimant’s claim of race discrimination is dismissed upon withdrawal. 2. The rest of the claimant’s claim is struck out. FULL REASONS
1. The claimant has less than two years qualifying service and consequently cannot bring a claim for unfair dismissal or for a redundancy payment. 2. The claimant has confirmed that he is not owed any monies by way of notice pay, accrued holiday, and arrears of pay. Consequently, those claims have no reasonable prospect of success.
Approved by:
Employment Judge Alliott
Date: 6 May 2026
JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON
14 May 2026
FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE
Notes
Case Number: 6018638/2025
2
All judgments (apart from judgments under Rule 51) and any full 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 claimants and respondents. If a Tribunal hearing has been recorded, you may request a transcript of the recording. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, you will have to pay for it. 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:
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 Claim Struck Out: Non-Compliance and Unreasonable Conduct
- Employment Tribunal Unfair Dismissal Claim Struck Out by Employment Tribunal
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Dismisses Claimant’s Employment Claims
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Strikes Out Case for Procedural Failures
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Strikes Out Unfair Dismissal Complaint Due to Short Ser…
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Strikes Out Unfair Dismissal Claims Due to Lack of Serv…
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Strikes Out Unfair Dismissal Claim Due to Insufficient …
A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Employment Tribunal struck out the worker's unfair dismissal and redundancy claims due to insufficient qualifying service.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was over whether the worker met the minimum service requirement to bring a claim for unfair dismissal and redundancy payment.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to strike out the claims because the worker had less than two years of qualifying service with the employer.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Equality Act 2010 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the worker's lack of sufficient qualifying service with the employer.
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 find that their unfair dismissal and redundancy claims are struck out if they do not meet the minimum service requirement.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify the evidence or documents that mattered.