Employment Tribunal Strikes Out Unfair Dismissal Claims Due to Lack of Service
📌 In brief
In this case, the Employment Tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claims brought by the claimants because they did not have at least two years of continuous employment with their employer as required by law.
⚖️ Legal holding
A claimant must have at least two years of continuous employment to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
📖 What the law says
An employee must have been continuously employed for at least two years to qualify for protection against unfair dismissal under section 94.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The claimants' unfair dismissal claims were struck out due to insufficient service.
📜 Headnote Official document
The claimants' unfair dismissal claims were struck out by the Employment Judge as they had less than two years of continuous service with their employer, failing to meet the statutory requirements under s.108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Struck Out
Case Number: 3320892/2021-3320893/2021
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimants:
[redacted]
Respondent: [redacted]
The complaint that the claimants were unfairly dismissed is struck out.
REASONS
1. The claimants complain 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 claimants were employed by the respondent for less than two years.
4. Therefore the claimants are not entitled to bring such a complaint.
5. The claimants have 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 claimants’ other complaints are not affected by this judgment.
_____________________________
Employment Judge Quill
Date:10/1/2022
JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON
27/1/2022
[NAME]
FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE
Case Numbers: 3320892-3/2021
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: [redacted]
[NAME] [APPELLANT]
Respondent: [redacted]
The claims are struck out.
REASONS
1. The Tribunal wrote to the claimants on 29 January 2026 warning them that the Tribunal was considering striking out the claims. This was because it appeared to the Tribunal, applying Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, that
the claims had not been actively pursued;
2. The letter gave the claimants an opportunity to explain why the claims should not be struck out, or to request a hearing at which to do so. The claimants have not replied.
3. I am satisfied that the grounds for striking out the claims under Rule 38 apply, and that it would be in accordance with the overriding objective in Rule 3 to strike out the claims.
4. The claims are therefore struck out.
Approved by:
Employment Judge Tynan
8 April 2026
JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON
9 April 2026 .....................................................................
..................................................................... FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- Employment Tribunal Claims Struck Out by Employment Tribunal
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Strikes Out Unfair Dismissal Claim for Insufficient Ser…
- Employment Tribunal Claimant’s Employment Tribunal Case Struck Out for Inactivity
- Employment Tribunal Employment Claims Struck Out for Inactive Pursuit
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Strikes Out Case for Procedural Failures
- Employment Tribunal Unfair Dismissal Claim Struck Out for Insufficient Service
- 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 Unfair Dismissal Claim for Insufficient Ser…
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Dismisses Race Discrimination Claim for Lack of Qualify…
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
- Claimant does not have at least two years of continuous employment.
- Case was not actively pursued.
- Claimant failed to comply with tribunal orders.
- Unreasonable conduct by the claimant.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The unfair dismissal claims were struck out due to insufficient service.
Who was involved?
A worker and an employer.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the claimants' claims should be struck out because they had less than two years of continuous employment with their employer.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The claimants' lack of sufficient service to bring an unfair dismissal claim under s.108 ERA 1996.
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 with less than two years of service cannot bring an unfair dismissal claim under UK law.
What evidence or documents mattered?
No specific evidence was mentioned, but the length of employment is critical.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, decisions can often be appealed to a higher court within specified time limits.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is highly recommended to seek legal advice from a qualified solicitor.