Unfair Dismissal and Victimisation Claims Struck Out by Employment Tribunal
📌 In brief
In this case, an employee tried to bring claims against their employer for unfair dismissal and victimisation but the Employment Tribunal dismissed both claims. The tribunal ruled that the claimant did not have enough service with the company to bring a claim of unfair dismissal as required by law.
⚖️ Legal holding
A claimant must have the requisite service period to bring an unfair dismissal claim under section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996.
📖 What the law says
For an unfair dismissal claim to be valid under section 94, an employee must have been continuously employed for at least two years up to the termination date. There are exceptions where the required service period can be shorter, but these are not applicable in this case.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant's application to amend and bring a victimisation claim was refused, and their unfair dismissal claim was struck out due to lack of service.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Employment Tribunal refused the claimant's application to amend their claim to include victimisation. The unfair dismissal claim was struck out due to lack of service period as required by section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Struck Out
Case No: 3312704/2023
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: [redacted]
Respondent: [redacted] Norwich Employment Tribunal (in public; by CVP)
On: 10 February 2026
Before: Employment Judge Gordon Walker (sitting alone)
Appearances
For the claimant: [redacted]
For the respondent: [redacted]
JUDGMENT
1. The claimant’s application to amend the claim to add a claim of victimisation is refused.
2. The claimant’s claim is struck out pursuant to rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2024 because the claimant does not have the requisite service required to bring a claim of unfair dismissal (as required by section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996).
Approved by:
Employment Judge Gordon Walker
Date: 10 February 2026
JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON
16 April 2026
FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE
Case No: 3312704/2023
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.
Public access to employment tribunal decisions Judgments 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.
Case Number: 3312704/2023
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: [redacted]
Respondent: [redacted] Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 – Rule 21
1. The claim succeeds and the remedy to which the claimant is entitled will be determined at a Remedy Hearing.
_____________________________
Regional Employment Judge Foxwell
Date: 31 July 2024
JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON
03/9/2024 AND ENTERED IN THE REGISTER
N Gotecha
FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE
Case No: 3312704/2023 11.12 Judgment on reconsideration – no hearing - rules 70 and 73
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: [redacted]
Respondent: [redacted] judgment dated 31 July 2024 under rule 71 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 (now rule 69 of the 2024 Rules), and without a hearing,
JUDGMENT
The judgment dated 31 July 2024 is revoked it being necessary in the interests of justice to do so.
REASONS
Judgment was entered against the respondent under rule 21 of the 2013 Rules on 31 July 2024 in error on the basis that it had not entered a response. The Tribunal had written to it on 19 March 2024 saying that no response was required until further order and no such further order had been made when judgment was entered against it.
Approved by:
Regional Employment Judge Foxwell
21 January 2025
JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON
30 January 2025
FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- Employment Tribunal Claim Dropped: Employment Tribunal Rules on Non-Appearing Party
- Employment Tribunal Claim Struck Out: Insufficient Factual Basis Provided
- Employment Tribunal Employment Claim Dismissed Due to Non-Attendance
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rejects Redundancy Payment Claim for Missing Step
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Strikes Out Unfair Dismissal Claim, Orders Deposit for …
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Strikes Out Unfair Dismissal Claim for Being Out of Tim…
- Employment Tribunal Unfair Dismissal Claim Struck Out by Employment Tribunal
- Employment Tribunal Claim Struck Out for Not Following Court Orders
- Employment Tribunal Disability Discrimination Claim Struck Out by Employment Tribunal
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Strips Discrimination Claims for Lack of Merit
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Strikes Out Unfair Dismissal Claim Due to Statutory Bar
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Dismisses Claimant’s Employment Claims
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
- Claimants must have the requisite service period to bring an unfair dismissal claim.
- Claims must be supported by a clear and concise statement of facts for respondents to properly respond.
- Failure to attend a scheduled hearing can result in case dismissal.
- Parties’ failure to attend a hearing can lead to case dismissal under Rule 47.
- Employment tribunals may strike out claims without reasonable prospects of success.
- Claimants must notify Acas for early conciliation before presenting a claim.
- Employers are not liable if benefits claimed lack evidence or legal basis.
- Claimants must comply with Employment Tribunal case management orders.
- Claims must be presented within three months after termination unless it is reasonable.
- Employers do not need to make adjustments that are not clearly causing substantial disadvantage.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Employment Tribunal refused the claimant's application to amend their claim and struck out the unfair dismissal claim.
Who was involved?
A worker and an employer were involved in a dispute over unfair dismissal and victimisation claims.
How did the court decide, and why?
The tribunal decided that the claimant lacked the necessary service period to bring an unfair dismissal claim under section 108 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 lack of service period required to bring an unfair dismissal claim under section 108 ERA 1996 was crucial.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
Against the claimant, as both claims were dismissed.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone must have worked at least two years to bring an unfair dismissal claim unless they qualify for an exemption.
What evidence or documents mattered?
No specific evidence is mentioned; the decision was based on legal requirements.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, decisions from Employment Tribunals can often be appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is advisable to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.