Unfair dismissal claim struck out: the two-year service rule in action
A former employee of the University of Bradford had his unfair dismissal claim struck out because he had less than two years' service. His harassment and disability discrimination claims were also struck out for procedural failures.
2 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed by the respondent for less than two years.
- The claimant's unfair dismissal complaint was struck out for lack of jurisdiction.
- The claimant's harassment complaint was struck out for failing to show cause.
- The claimant's disability discrimination complaints were struck out for failing to pay a deposit.
- The claimant's application for reconsideration was refused as out of time and without merit.
Timeline
-
First judgment on unfair dismissal
Employment Judge James struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because the claimant had less than two years' service.
-
Case management hearing
A hearing was held where means were discussed and a deposit order was made for disability discrimination complaints.
-
Orders sent to parties
The Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to show cause why the harassment claim should not be struck out and ordered a deposit for disability discrimination complaints.
-
Claimant's email
The claimant emailed an account that did not show cause why his harassment complaint was arguable.
-
Extension request
The claimant applied for an extension of time to pay the deposit, citing difficulty finding funds.
-
Second judgment on harassment and disability discrimination
Employment Judge Wade struck out the harassment claim and the disability discrimination complaints for failure to pay the deposit.
-
Judgment sent to parties
The judgment of 28 November 2023 was sent to the parties.
-
Reconsideration application
The claimant sent an email asking to 're-open my case' and seeking advice.
-
Reconsideration refused
Employment Judge Wade refused the reconsideration application as out of time and without merit.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant had sufficient service to bring an unfair dismissal claim and whether his other claims should be struck out for procedural failures.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out all of the claimant's complaints.
- The unfair dismissal claim was struck out because the claimant had less than two years' continuous service, which is a legal requirement under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
- The harassment claim was struck out after the claimant failed to show cause why it should not be struck out, despite being given an opportunity.
- The disability discrimination claims were struck out because the claimant did not pay a deposit ordered by the tribunal, and an extension of time was refused.
- An application for reconsideration was also refused as out of time and without merit.
No compensation was awarded as the claims were struck out.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employees with less than two years' continuous service generally cannot bring an unfair dismissal claim, unless the dismissal is for an automatically unfair reason.
- Tribunals can order a deposit as a condition of pursuing a claim if it has little reasonable prospect of success; failing to pay can lead to the claim being struck out.
- If you are given an opportunity to show cause why a claim should not be struck out, you must provide detailed and arguable reasons, not just repeat what was said before.
- Applications for reconsideration must be made promptly and must address the reasons given in the original judgment; vague requests to 're-open' a case are unlikely to succeed.
The two-year service rule in practice
This case illustrates a fundamental hurdle in employment law: the requirement for at least two years' continuous service to bring a standard unfair dismissal claim. The former employee of the University of Bradford had been employed for less than two years, so the tribunal had no choice but to strike out that part of his claim. Even if the dismissal was unfair in a moral sense, the law does not provide a remedy for those with short service unless the reason is automatically unfair (such as whistleblowing or discrimination).
Procedural pitfalls
The claimant also faced difficulties with his other claims. After a case management hearing, the tribunal gave him a chance to explain why his harassment complaint should not be struck out. His response simply repeated earlier points without showing that the claim was arguable. Separately, he was ordered to pay a deposit to continue his disability discrimination claims, but he failed to pay on time. He asked for an extension the day before the deadline, citing difficulty finding funds, but the tribunal refused, noting that he had known about the requirement for a month. The claims were struck out.
What could have been done differently?
The claimant could have sought legal advice early on to understand the two-year service rule and the risks of proceeding without strong evidence. For the harassment claim, he needed to provide a clear, reasoned argument showing why the claim had merit. For the deposit, he could have planned ahead or requested a review of the deposit order if he believed it was unfair. Once the deadline passed, the tribunal was unlikely to grant an extension without a compelling reason.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that employment tribunals have strict procedural rules. Claimants who fail to comply with orders or who bring claims without the required service period risk having their cases struck out entirely. Even if a claimant feels they have been treated unfairly, the tribunal will not bend the rules to allow a claim to proceed.
Similar cases
Constructive dismissal claims survive strike-out attempt: lessons for employers on trust and confidence
An experienced HR professional's claims of constructive unfair dismissal and disability discrimination will proceed to a full hearing after the tribunal refused to strike them out, though deposit orders were made.
Clinical director's disability claim dismissed: employer unaware of hypothyroidism
A veterinary surgeon who claimed disability discrimination over her dismissal lost her case because her employer did not know and could not reasonably have known she was disabled due to hypothyroidism.
Strike-out and deposit order: a mixed outcome for former employee with osteoarthritis
A former employee with osteoarthritis faced strike-out of one harassment claim but was allowed to proceed with others, including unfair dismissal and disability discrimination, after a preliminary hearing.
Spray operative with anxiety and depression: strike-out of reasonable adjustments claim refused
A tribunal refused to strike out a reasonable adjustments claim brought by a spray operative with mixed anxiety and depression, despite the employer arguing the claim had no reasonable prospects. The employer had already conceded unfair dismissal.