Employment Tribunal Strikes Out Unfair Dismissal Claim for Insufficient Service
📌 In brief
The Employment Tribunal dismissed an unfair dismissal claim because the worker did not have enough time with their employer (less than two years). This is necessary to bring such a case under UK law.
⚖️ Legal holding
A claimant must have at least two years of continuous employment to bring an unfair dismissal claim under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant's unfair dismissal claim was struck out due to lack of qualifying service under s.98 ERA 1996.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Employment Tribunal struck out the claimant's unfair dismissal case due to a lack of two years' continuous employment, as required by s.98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Struck Out
Case Number: 3201117/2025
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: [redacted]
Respondent: [redacted]
JUDGMENT
The claim is struck out.
REASONS
1. The Tribunal wrote to the claimant on 10 February 2026 warning them that the Tribunal was considering striking out the claim. This was because it appeared to the Tribunal, applying section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 that the claimant did not have the necessary 2 years’ of employment to bring an unfair dismissal claim.
2. The letter gave the claimant an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out, or to request a hearing at which to do so. The claimant has not replied. Although the Claimant did reply to the Respondent’s application for a strike out partly on the same basis. He gave no reason that shows there is power to hear his claim when he did not have the necessary qualifying ser- vice.
3. I am satisfied that the grounds for striking out the claim under Rule 38 apply, in that the Claimant on his own case did not have 2 complete years’ of em- ployment and therefore does not have the right to bring a claim of unfair dis- missal and therefore there are no reasonable prospects of success.
4. The claim is therefore struck out.
5. The hearing on 7 December 2026 will not take place.
Approved by:
Employment Judge Moor
18 May 2026
Notes 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. If written reasons are provided they will be placed online. 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 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 Employment Tribunal Strikes Out Unfair Dismissal Claims Due to Lack of Serv…
- Employment Tribunal Claimant's Unfair Dismissal Claim Struck Out by Employment Tribunal
- 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 Race Discrimination Claim for Lack of Qualify…
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Strips Harassment Case Over Lack of Merit
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 case has no reasonable prospect of success.
- The claimant engages in unreasonable conduct or fails to comply with orders.
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 claimant's unfair dismissal case.
Who was involved?
A worker and their employer, with the Department of Work and Pensions as a respondent.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to strike out the case because the worker had less than two years' employment, which is required under UK law for an unfair dismissal claim.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was cited as the key provision.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The lack of two years' continuous employment with the employer was crucial to the decision.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
Against the claimant, as their unfair dismissal claim was struck out.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone must have at least two years of continuous employment to bring an unfair dismissal claim.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The Employment Tribunal reviewed the claimant's employment history and found it insufficient under s.98 ERA 1996.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, decisions from Employment Tribunals can often be appealed to an Employment Appeal Tribunal.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is advisable to seek legal advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving employment law.