Unfair Dismissal Claim Rejected Due to Lack of Continuous Service
📌 In brief
In this case, an employee brought a claim against their employer for unfair dismissal but was unsuccessful because they had not worked at the company long enough to meet the legal requirement of two years' continuous service. This means that the Employment Judge ruled in favour of the employer on this point.
⚖️ Legal holding
An employee must have at least two years of continuous employment to bring a claim for unfair dismissal under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
📖 What the law says
This section outlines the criteria for determining whether the dismissal of an employee is fair or unfair. It places the burden on the employer to provide the reason for the dismissal and to prove that the reason falls within certain categories, including the employee's capability or qualifications, their conduct, redundancy, or a breach of duty or restriction.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant's unfair dismissal claim was dismissed due to lack of continuity of service.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Employment Judge dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal claim on the grounds that they lacked the necessary continuity of employment required under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The decision did not address any potential claims for automatic unfair dismissal.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Dismissed
Case Number: 1806154/2025
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: [redacted]
Respondent: [redacted] (in private; by CVP)
On: 1 May 2026
Before: Employment Judge EP Morgan KC
Appearances For the claimant: [redacted]
In Person (Supported by his brother) For the respondent: [redacted]
JUDGMENT
1. The Claim of unfair dismissal contrary to section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is dismissed on the ground that the Claimant lacks the necessary continuity of service to bring such a claim.
2. Nothing in this Judgment shall be taken to constitute a determination of any potential claim of automatic unfair dismissal contrary to section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
3. The remaining claims are otherwise unaffected by the terms of this judgment.
E P Morgan KC
5 May 2026
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- Employment Tribunal Claim Dismissed: No Attendance, Insufficient Service Period
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Awards Wages But Dismisses Unfair Dismissal Claims
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rejects Unfair Dismissal Complaint
- Employment Tribunal Late Filing Costs Claimant: Unfair & Wrongful Dismissal Claims Rejected
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rejects Unfair Dismissal and Breach of Contract Claims
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rejects Unfair Dismissal Claim
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rejects Worker’s Claims Against Employer
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Strikes Out Unfair Dismissal Claim for Insufficient 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 Employment Tribunal Strikes Out Unfair Dismissal Claim Due to Insufficient …
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Strikes Out Unfair Dismissal Complaint Due to Short Ser…
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 did not have at least two years of continuous employment.
- The claim was not filed within the applicable time limits set by law.
- The court struck out the claim as the employee had not met the criteria for bringing 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 claimant's unfair dismissal case was dismissed due to insufficient employment continuity.
Who was involved?
An employee (the claimant) and their employer (respondent).
How did the court decide, and why?
The judge ruled against the claimant because they had not worked for two years continuously at the same company.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was cited as the relevant law.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The claimant's lack of continuous employment for two years was crucial to the decision.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
Against, since the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
If an employee has not worked continuously at their job for two years, they cannot bring an unfair dismissal claim.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The employment history and length of service were key to the decision.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, but it depends on the specific circumstances and legal grounds for appeal.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is advisable to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.