Unfair Dismissal Claim Struck Out for Insufficient Service
📌 In brief
The Employment Tribunal dismissed the worker's unfair dismissal complaint because they had been employed by the employer for less than two years and could not provide a valid reason why this should not prevent them from making such a claim. The decision was made based on s.108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
⚖️ Legal holding
An employer is not liable for unfair dismissal if an employee has less than two years of service and cannot provide a valid reason for the exception.
📖 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 claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal was struck out by the Employment Judge as they had less than two years' service with the employer and could not provide a valid reason for why this should not be an obstacle to their claim under s.108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Struck Out
Case Number: 2300098/2026 and ors EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: [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 Liz Ord Date: 14 April 2026
JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON 17 April 2026 FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE P Wing
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- 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 Strikes Out Unfair Dismissal Claim Due to Insufficient …
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Strikes Out Unfair Dismissal Complaint Due to Short Ser…
- Employment Tribunal Claim Struck Out: Non-Compliance and Unreasonable Conduct
- Employment Tribunal Unfair Dismissal Claim Struck Out by Employment Tribunal
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Strikes Out Case for Procedural Failures
- 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 Employment Tribunal Rejects Redundancy Payment Claim for Missing Step
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Strikes Out Unfair Dismissal Claim for Insufficient Ser…
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Strikes Out Unfair Dismissal Claim Due to Statutory Bar
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 continuous service
- Claimant failed to comply with orders and engaged in unreasonable conduct
- Claim lacks a reasonable prospect of success
- Claimant did not notify Acas for early conciliation
- Claimant failed to pay a required deposit
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The complaint of unfair dismissal was struck out.
Who was involved?
A worker and their employer.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the claimant's service period was insufficient under s.108 ERA 1996.
Which laws or rules were applied?
s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The claimant could not provide a valid reason for why their service period should not prevent them from making an unfair dismissal claim.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
Against the worker.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
If you have less than two years of service and cannot provide a valid reason, your unfair dismissal complaint may be struck out.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The claimant's length of employment was the key factor.
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 always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor.