Less than two years' service: unfair dismissal and redundancy claims struck out, but wages claim succeeds
A former employee who had worked for Velocity Delivery Services Limited for less than two years had their unfair dismissal and redundancy claims struck out, but was awarded £1,985.61 for an unauthorised deduction from wages.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #strike-out
- #less-than-two-years-service
- #unauthorised-deduction-from-wages
Key facts
- The claimant was employed by the respondent for less than two years.
- The claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal and for a redundancy payment were struck out due to insufficient service.
- The respondent failed to present a valid response to the wages claim.
- The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £1,985.61 for unauthorised deduction from wages.
- The remaining claim was struck out for lack of active pursuit.
Timeline
-
Tribunal gives opportunity to show cause
The tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations as to why the unfair dismissal and redundancy claims should not be struck out.
-
First judgment: strike out of unfair dismissal and redundancy claims
Employment Judge Johnson struck out the unfair dismissal and redundancy payment claims because the claimant had less than two years' service.
-
Second judgment: wages claim succeeds
Employment Judge M Butler found that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from wages and ordered payment of £1,985.61.
-
Judgment sent to parties
The second judgment was sent to the parties, triggering the interest period.
-
Tribunal gives opportunity to show cause for remaining claim
The tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to show why the remaining claim should not be struck out for lack of active pursuit.
-
Final judgment: remaining claim struck out
Employment Judge Cookson struck out the remaining claim because the claimant failed to respond.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employee had sufficient service to bring claims for unfair dismissal and a redundancy payment, and whether the employer had made an unauthorised deduction from wages.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal and redundancy payment claims because the employee had less than two years' service, as required by sections 108 and 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The employee was given an opportunity to argue why the claims should not be struck out but failed to provide an acceptable reason.
The tribunal also ordered the respondent to pay £1,985.61 for an unauthorised deduction from wages, after the employer failed to present a valid response to that claim. The remaining claim was later struck out for lack of active pursuit.
Compensation:
- Unauthorised deduction from wages: £1,985.61 (gross sum, with the employee responsible for tax and NI)
Lessons & takeaways
- Employees need at least two years' continuous service to bring a claim for unfair dismissal or a statutory redundancy payment.
- If you have less than two years' service, check if you fall within an exception, such as automatically unfair dismissal (e.g., for whistleblowing or asserting a statutory right).
- Employers who fail to respond to a wages claim may face a default judgment ordering payment.
- Tribunals may strike out claims if the claimant does not actively pursue them after being given an opportunity to show cause.
This case shows the hard reality of the two-year service requirement for unfair dismissal and redundancy claims. The former employee had worked for Velocity Delivery Services Limited for less than two years, so their claims were automatically struck out — regardless of the merits. The tribunal gave them a chance to explain why the claims should proceed, but no acceptable reason was provided.
However, the employee succeeded on a separate claim for unauthorised deduction from wages. The employer failed to file a valid response, leading to a default judgment of £1,985.61. This highlights that even when the main claims fail, other rights — like the right to be paid correctly — can still be enforced.
What could have been done differently?
The employer could have avoided the wages judgment by responding to the claim. For the employee, the key lesson is that the two-year service rule is a strict barrier. If they had been dismissed for an automatically unfair reason (such as whistleblowing), they might have had a claim regardless of service length.
Why this matters
For anyone considering an employment tribunal claim, this case is a reminder to check your length of service first. It also shows that employers who ignore claims risk automatic losses. The mixed outcome — strike-out on one hand, a monetary award on the other — illustrates that each claim is judged on its own legal basis.
Similar cases
Former employee's unfair dismissal claim struck out after failing to engage with tribunal
A former employee who failed to attend hearings and ignored tribunal orders had his unfair dismissal claim struck out. The tribunal also noted he had less than two years' service, which normally bars such claims.
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.
Unfair dismissal claim struck out: the two-year service rule in action
A former employee with less than two years' service had her unfair dismissal complaint struck out by the tribunal. Other discrimination claims remain pending.
Claim dismissed after employee fails to attend hearing
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim was struck out after he failed to attend a preliminary hearing and did not provide evidence to show his claim was filed in time.