Employment Tribunal Strikes Out Unfair Dismissal Claim for Insufficient Service
📌 In brief
An employment tribunal dismissed a worker's unfair dismissal case because they had not worked for their employer for at least two years, which is required under UK law.
⚖️ Legal holding
An employer is not liable for an unfair dismissal claim if the employee has less than two years of service.
📖 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 to the effective date of termination.
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.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Employment Judge struck out the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint due to insufficient employment service, as per s.108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Struck Out
each Case Number: 6027788/2025
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: [redacted]
Respondent: [redacted]
2. [NAME] ([APPELLANT]
The complaint that the claimant was unfairly dismissed 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 service 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 such a complaint.
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 complaint of unfair dismissal is struck out. The claimant’s other complaints are not affected by this judgment.
Approved by Employment Judge Ryan Date: 10 April 2026
JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON 07 May 2026
[NAME] FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- Employment Tribunal Unfair Dismissal Claim Struck Out for Insufficient Service
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Strikes Out Unfair Dismissal Claim Due to Insufficient …
- 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 Dismisses Race Discrimination Claim for Lack of Qualify…
- Employment Tribunal Claimant's Discrimination Claims Struck Out by Employment Tribunal
- Employment Tribunal Unfair Dismissal Claim Struck Out by Employment Tribunal
- Employment Tribunal Claim Struck Out: Non-Compliance and Unreasonable Conduct
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Strikes Out Case for Procedural Failures
- Employment Tribunal Employment Claims Struck Out Due to No Reasonable Prospect of Success
- Employment Tribunal Employment Claims Struck Out for Non-Compliance
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
- Employee has less than two years of service.
- Claimant failed to comply with tribunal orders or actively pursue the case.
- Case had no reasonable prospect of success under Rule 38.
- Claimant did not meet the minimum employment period required for an unfair dismissal claim.
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 claim due to insufficient service period.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the claimant could bring an unfair dismissal claim after working for less than two years.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to strike out the claim because the claimant had not met the two-year service requirement set by the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the claimant had not completed two years of 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 also have their unfair dismissal claim struck out if they have not met the two-year service requirement.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify the evidence or documents that mattered.