VadeLab
Struck OutEmployment Tribunal·england-and-wales·

Employment Tribunal Strikes Out Unfair Dismissal Complaint Due to Short Service Period

Case No. 6029362/2025 · Judges Employment, Childe

📌 In brief

An employment tribunal dismissed an employee's unfair dismissal case because they did not meet the minimum two-year service requirement set by law. The decision was based on Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which mandates a qualifying period for such claims.

⚖️ 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 dismissalemployment rights

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Employment Rights Act 1996 s.108

An employee must have been continuously employed for at least two years before they can file an unfair dismissal claim under section 94.

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 struck out a claimant's unfair dismissal complaint due to insufficient service period, as the claimant had not completed two years of employment with the respondent.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Struck Out

each Case Number: 6029362/2025

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 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 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 Childe

Date: 13 February 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.

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 unfair dismissal claim due to insufficient service period.

Who was involved?

An employee and their employer were involved in the case.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided that the claimant's service period was too short under Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was applied.

What argument mattered most?

The claimant's insufficient service period was the key reason for striking out the case.

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 with less than two years of service should not expect to succeed in an unfair dismissal claim.

What evidence or documents mattered?

No specific evidence or documents were mentioned as crucial.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, such decisions can typically be appealed within the specified time frame.

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 disputes.

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.