Employment Tribunal Strikes Out Unfair Dismissal Claim Due to Statutory Bar
📌 In brief
The Employment Judge dismissed the worker's unfair dismissal claim against their employer and related entities because they hadn't worked there long enough to qualify under employment law. This decision highlights the importance of meeting statutory requirements before bringing such a case.
⚖️ Legal holding
A claim for unfair dismissal cannot succeed if the claimant has not been continuously employed by the employer for two years ending with the effective date of termination.
📖 What the law says
Section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 does not apply to the dismissal of an employee unless they have been continuously employed for at least two years up until the effective date of termination.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant's unfair dismissal claim was struck out due to a statutory bar under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Employment Judge struck out the claimant’s unfair dismissal claim against R1, R2 and R3 due to a statutory bar under section 108(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant had not been continuously employed by R3 for two years ending with the effective date of termination.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Struck Out
Case No. 6018483/2024 and 6012138/2025
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: [redacted]
Respondents: [redacted]
Heard at:
London South Employment Tribunal via CVP
On:
09 April 2026
Case numbers: 6018483/2024 and 6012138/2025
Before:
Employment Judge M Da [NAME] sitting alone
ATTENDANCE AND REPRESENTATION
Claimant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] The judgment of the Tribunal is as follows: Complaint of unfair dismissal contrary to section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 1. The case was listed today for its preliminary case management hearing.
2. There was an application today by the respondent pursuant to rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 to strike out the claimant’s claim for unfair dismissal.
3. Both parties agreed that the claimant started employment with [NAME] in June 2023 and that the effective date of the termination of his employment was 4 September 2024. Therefore, both parties agreed that the claimant had not been continuously employed by [NAME] for two years ending with the effective date of termination. Both parties agreed that, outside of being entities that were part and parcel of [NAME], [NAME] No. 6018483/2024 and 6012138/2025
2
and [NAME] had no separate status and did, themselves, not employ the claimant, therefore the claimant could not bring a claim for unfair dismissal against [NAME] and/or [NAME].
4. This means that section 108(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 operates as a statutory bar to the claimant bringing a claim of unfair dismissal against any or all of [NAME], [NAME] and [NAME]. Therefore such a claim could not possibly succeed.
5. Therefore the “no reasonable prospect of success” limb of rule 38(1)(a) applies.
6. Since this is a jurisdictional point because section operates as a bar to the claimant bringing a claim for unfair dismissal, I must exercise my discretion to operate rule 38(1)(a).
7.
Accordingly, the claimant’s claim for unfair dismissal is struck out and thereby dismissed.
8. The claimant’s other claims, namely for direct race discrimination and detriment due to a protected disclosure, remain and are not affected by this judgment.
Employment Judge M Da [NAME] 16 April 2026
Note Reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing. Written reasons will not be provided unless a party asked for them at the hearing or a party makes a written request within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision.
Public access to employment tribunal decisions Judgments (apart from judgments under rule 52) and reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online at www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the claimant(s) and respondent(s) in a case.
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Dismisses Claimant’s Employment Claims
- Employment Tribunal Claimant's Unfair Dismissal Claim Struck Out by Employment Tribunal
- Employment Tribunal Claim Dropped: Employment Tribunal Rules on Non-Appearing Party
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Strikes Out Unfair Dismissal Claim, Orders Deposit for …
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rejects Redundancy Payment Claim for Missing Step
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Strikes Out Unfair Dismissal Claims
- Employment Tribunal Employment Claim Dismissed Due to Non-Attendance
- Employment Tribunal Unfair Dismissal and Victimisation Claims Struck Out by Employment Tribunal
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 has not been continuously employed for two years.
- The claim lacks reasonable prospects of success.
- Failure to attend a scheduled hearing can result in case dismissal.
- Claims without substantiated evidence or applicable law are struck out.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Employment Judge struck out the claimant's unfair dismissal claim due to a statutory bar.
Who was involved?
A worker and their employer, along with related entities.
How did the court decide, and why?
The judge decided that the statutory bar under section 108(1) of the Employment Rights Act applied because the claimant had not been continuously employed for two years.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Section 108(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The statutory bar under section 108(1) of the Employment Rights Act, which prevents claims if employment is less than two years continuous.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
Against the claimant.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone must have been continuously employed by their employer for at least two years to bring an unfair dismissal claim.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The dates of employment and termination were key to the decision.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, decisions can often be appealed but it depends on specific circumstances.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is highly recommended to seek legal advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.