Accountant with less than two years' service loses redundancy claim
An accountant who resigned during a redundancy process had his unfair dismissal and redundancy pay claims struck out because he lacked the required two years' continuous service.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as an accountant from 1 December 2021 to 18 July 2022.
- On 14 April 2022 the respondent announced a redundancy restructure affecting the finance team.
- The claimant resigned on 22 May 2022 and left on 18 July 2022 after agreeing to end employment early.
- The claimant had less than two years' continuous service at the effective date of termination.
- The claimant did not respond to the tribunal's strike out warning or comply with orders to provide further particulars.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
The claimant started work as an accountant for the respondent.
-
Redundancy announcement
The respondent announced that the UK finance team roles were at risk of redundancy due to a restructure.
-
Redundancy meeting
The claimant attended a one-to-one redundancy meeting and expressed belief that the restructure was known at his start date.
-
Resignation letter
The claimant resigned, giving notice until 14 August 2022.
-
Employment ended
The claimant agreed to leave on 31 July 2022 but was released from work immediately with pay until that date.
-
Claim presented
The claimant filed claims for unfair dismissal, redundancy pay, notice pay, and bonus pay.
-
Strike out warning
The tribunal sent a letter warning that claims for unfair dismissal and redundancy pay may be struck out due to insufficient service.
-
Full-merits hearing
The tribunal heard the respondent's applications for strike out and deposit orders.
-
Reserved judgment
The tribunal struck out unfair dismissal and redundancy claims for lack of jurisdiction, and ordered deposits of £50 each for bonus and notice pay claims.
-
Judgment sent to parties
The order was sent, giving 21 days to pay deposits and provide further particulars.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether it had jurisdiction to hear claims for unfair dismissal and redundancy pay from an employee with less than two years' service, and whether the remaining claims for bonus and notice pay should be struck out or subject to a deposit order.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out the claimant's unfair dismissal and redundancy pay claims for want of jurisdiction, as he had only 7 months' service and did not meet the two-year qualifying period.
The tribunal refused to strike out the claims for bonus pay and notice pay, but ordered the claimant to pay a deposit of £50 for each claim as a condition of continuing, finding they had little reasonable prospect of success. The claimant was also ordered to provide further particulars of those claims within 21 days or face strike out.
No compensation was awarded as the primary claims were struck out.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employees with less than two years' continuous service generally cannot bring unfair dismissal or redundancy pay claims, unless the dismissal is for an automatically unfair reason.
- If you resign during a redundancy process, you may lose entitlement to any severance package that was conditional on staying until the end of your role.
- Tribunals can order a deposit (up to £1,000) if a claim has little reasonable prospect of success, and failure to pay can result in the claim being struck out.
- It is essential to comply with tribunal orders, such as providing further particulars, or your claim may be struck out without a hearing.
This case shows the strict application of the two-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal and redundancy pay claims. The claimant, an accountant at Tiffany & Co., had only 7 months' service when he resigned during a redundancy restructure. Despite his belief that the restructure was known at his start date, the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear his claims.
What the tribunal decided
The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal and redundancy pay claims outright because the law requires at least two years' continuous service for these claims (unless the dismissal is for an automatically unfair reason, which was not argued here). The remaining claims for bonus pay and notice pay were allowed to proceed, but only on condition that the claimant pay a £50 deposit for each and provide further details. The tribunal found these claims had 'little reasonable prospect of success'.
What could have been done differently
The claimant could have sought legal advice before resigning, as resigning early meant he lost eligibility for the severance package offered. He also failed to respond to the tribunal's strike out warning and did not comply with orders to provide further particulars, which weakened his position. Engaging with the tribunal process and providing clear evidence might have improved his chances, though the jurisdictional hurdle remained.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that employment rights often depend on length of service. Employees with less than two years' service have limited protection against unfair dismissal and no right to statutory redundancy pay. It also highlights the importance of complying with tribunal directions and the risk of deposit orders for weak claims. For employers, it confirms that the two-year qualifying period is a robust defence against such claims, provided the dismissal is not for an automatically unfair reason.
Similar cases
Redundancy claim struck out for non-disclosure: costs of £6,853 awarded
A senior manager's unfair dismissal claim was struck out after he failed to disclose documents about his new job. The tribunal ordered him to pay £6,853 in costs for unreasonable conduct.
Constructive dismissal claim allowed to proceed after employer ignored redundancy request for 39 days
A former People Advisor who resigned after her employer failed to respond to her redundancy request for 39 days has been allowed to pursue claims for a redundancy payment and constructive unfair dismissal.
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.
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.