VadeLab
Struck OutEmployment Tribunal·england-and-wales·

Employment Tribunal Strikes Out Unfair Dismissal Claim Due to Insufficient Service Period

Case No. 6002661/2026 · Judge Leith

📌 In brief

An employment tribunal struck out a worker's unfair dismissal complaint because they had been employed for less than two years. Under UK law, workers must have at least two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal claim.

⚖️ Legal holding

An employee must have completed at least two years of service before filing an unfair dismissal claim under the Employment Rights Act 1996.

Topics

unfair dismissalservice requirement

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Employment Rights Act 1996 s.108

Under this rule, an employee can file an unfair dismissal claim only if they have been continuously employed for at least two years up until the termination date.

Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.

📖 Technical summary

The claimant's unfair dismissal complaint was struck out due to insufficient service period.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Employment Tribunal dismissed an unfair dismissal claim brought by a worker against their employer, ruling that the worker had not completed two years of service as required under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Struck Out

each

Case Number: 6002661/2026

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Claimant: [redacted]

Respondent: [redacted]

The claim is struck out.

REASONS

1. The claimant complains of unfair dismissal.

2. Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have not less than two years’ [RESPONDENT] to make an unfair dismissal complaint.

3. The claimant was employed by the respondent for less than two years.

4. Therefore the claimant is not entitled to bring these proceedings.

5. The claimant has failed to give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out.

6. Accordingly, the claim is struck out.

Approved by Employment Judge Leith

Date: 17 April 2026

Sent to the parties on: Date: 21 April 2026

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

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 employee had less than two years of service.
  • The claimant failed to comply with tribunal orders or actively pursue the case.
  • The claim did not have a reasonable prospect of success.
  • The claimant engaged in unreasonable conduct.

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 worker's unfair dismissal complaint.

Who was involved?

A worker and their employer were involved in the case.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided that the claimant had not completed two years of service as required by law.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The lack of sufficient employment period was the key issue.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was against the worker.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone with less than two years' service cannot bring an unfair dismissal claim.

What evidence or documents mattered?

No specific evidence is mentioned, but the employment period was crucial.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions can often be appealed to a higher court.

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

It's advisable to seek legal advice from a qualified solicitor.

Official source: Employment Tribunal — england-and-wales headnote and full judgment reproduced from the court's public records. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the Employment Tribunal and is reproduced from its published records. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.