Unfair dismissal claim dismissed: the two-year service rule in action
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim against the Independent Office for Police Conduct was thrown out at a preliminary hearing because she had not worked there long enough to qualify for protection.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #unfair-dismissal
- #insufficient-continuous-employment
- #jurisdictional-point
- #preliminary-hearing
Key facts
- The claimant presented a claim for unfair dismissal.
- The claimant had insufficient continuous employment to bring the claim.
- The claim was dismissed at a preliminary hearing.
- The claimant also has ongoing claims for race and disability discrimination.
Timeline
-
Dismissal on notice
The claimant was dismissed on notice, with effect from 5 January 2023.
-
Claim presented
The claimant presented her claim to the Employment Tribunal.
-
Preliminary hearing (unfair dismissal)
The tribunal heard the unfair dismissal claim and dismissed it due to insufficient continuous employment.
-
Judgment issued
The judgment dismissing the unfair dismissal claim was issued.
-
Amendment application
The claimant applied to amend her claim to add two new disabilities (anxiety and depression) and to add disability discrimination allegations.
-
Preliminary hearing (case management)
The tribunal dealt with the amendment application and case management orders. The amendment to add anxiety and depression was refused.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant had sufficient continuous employment (at least two years) to bring a claim for unfair dismissal. The claimant was dismissed on notice in December 2022, effective January 2023, and presented her claim in June 2023.
The outcome
The claimant's unfair dismissal claim was dismissed at a preliminary hearing because she did not meet the qualifying period of two years' continuous employment.
- The tribunal found that the claimant had insufficient continuous employment to bring the claim under section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
- No compensation was awarded as the claim was struck out on jurisdictional grounds.
- The claimant's other claims for race and disability discrimination remain ongoing.
Lessons & takeaways
- Check your continuous employment length before bringing an unfair dismissal claim – you generally need at least two years' service.
- If you have less than two years' service, you may still have other claims such as discrimination, which have no service requirement.
- Presenting a claim without the required service can lead to early dismissal at a preliminary hearing, wasting time and effort.
This case illustrates a hard legal reality: employees with less than two years' continuous service cannot bring a standard unfair dismissal claim. The former employee, who worked for the Independent Office for Police Conduct, was dismissed on notice in December 2022. When she later tried to challenge that dismissal, the tribunal struck out her claim at a preliminary hearing because she had not been employed long enough to qualify for protection under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
What the tribunal decided
The tribunal did not examine the merits of the dismissal – whether it was fair or not. Instead, it dealt with a preliminary legal point: the claimant's length of service. Under UK law, most employees need two years' continuous employment to bring an unfair dismissal claim. The claimant fell short of that threshold, so her claim was dismissed without a full hearing.
What the employer did right
The Independent Office for Police Conduct successfully raised the jurisdictional point at the earliest opportunity. By doing so, it avoided the time and cost of defending a claim that could not legally proceed. For employers, this case is a reminder to check the claimant's service length early – it can be a straightforward defence.
What this means for similar claims
For employees, the lesson is clear: if you have less than two years' service, you cannot bring a standard unfair dismissal claim. However, this does not mean you have no legal recourse. The claimant in this case also had ongoing claims for race and disability discrimination, which have no minimum service requirement. Anyone in a similar position should consider whether discrimination or other protected rights apply, as these can provide a route to challenge a dismissal even with short service.
Similar cases
Harassment claim against individual manager allowed to proceed late
A former employee's harassment and victimisation claims against her employer were deemed in time if there was conduct over a period, but time was extended for a harassment claim against the individual manager.
Former employee's constructive dismissal claim thrown out for being too late
A tribunal has dismissed a former employee's claims of constructive unfair dismissal, unpaid wages and race discrimination against Whitbread Group Plc because they were brought too late.
Race discrimination and wage claim dismissed as out of time: no extension granted
A former employee's claims for race discrimination and unlawful deduction of wages were dismissed because they were brought too late. The tribunal also refused a reconsideration application.
Asthma and hypertension found to be disabilities; arteriosclerosis and cardiomyopathy not
A preliminary hearing ruled that a former employee's asthma and hypertension were disabilities under the Equality Act, but arteriosclerosis and cardiomyopathy were not. No damages awarded as this was a preliminary issue.