Agency worker's multiple claims struck out: no jurisdiction and out of time
An agency worker who worked for less than two years had his unfair dismissal, unpaid wages, and breach of contract claims dismissed by the tribunal, along with human exploitation allegations which the tribunal had no power to hear.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #agency-worker
- #out-of-time
- #lack-of-jurisdiction
- #long-term-sickness
- #strike-out-warning
Key facts
- The claimant worked for the respondent as an agency worker between 26 August 2021 and 20 December 2021.
- The claimant presented a claim on 11 May 2022 for unfair dismissal, unpaid wages, breach of contract, human exploitation and modern day slavery.
- The claimant did not have two years' continuous employment to bring an unfair dismissal claim.
- The claimant's claims for unlawful deduction from wages and breach of contract were presented over a month after the time limit expired.
- The claimant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to explain why he could not present his claims in time.
- The Employment Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear claims of modern slavery or human exploitation.
Timeline
-
Start of agency work
The claimant began working for the respondent as an agency worker.
-
End of agency work
The claimant's agency work with the respondent ended.
-
Time limit for claims
The deadline for presenting claims for unlawful deduction from wages and breach of contract, after ACAS early conciliation, was 6 April 2022.
-
Claim presented
The claimant presented his claim to the Employment Tribunal.
-
Strike out warning
The tribunal sent a strike out warning to the claimant regarding his unfair dismissal claim due to lack of jurisdiction.
-
Respondent's application
The respondent applied to dismiss or strike out all claims.
-
Original judgment
Employment Judge Heath dismissed the claimant's claims in their entirety at a hearing the claimant did not attend.
-
Reconsideration request
The claimant emailed the tribunal requesting that his claim not be struck out, citing ill health.
-
Reconsideration hearing
A reconsideration hearing was held; the claimant did not attend due to hospitalization. The judge decided to determine the reconsideration on the papers.
-
Final judgment on reconsideration
Employment Judge Heath confirmed the original judgment, dismissing all claims.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether to strike out claims for unfair dismissal (due to insufficient service), unlawful deduction from wages and breach of contract (due to being out of time), and human exploitation/modern slavery (due to lack of jurisdiction).
The outcome
The tribunal confirmed its original decision to dismiss all claims.
The key reasons were:
- The claimant had only 4 months' service, well short of the 2 years needed for unfair dismissal.
- The claims for unpaid wages and breach of contract were presented after the 3-month time limit expired, and the claimant's medical evidence did not justify the delay.
- The tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear claims of human exploitation or modern slavery.
No compensation was awarded as all claims were dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Agency workers generally need two years' continuous service to bring an unfair dismissal claim – check your employment status and length of service first.
- Claims for unpaid wages and breach of contract must be presented to the tribunal within three months of the event – delays are rarely excused without strong medical evidence.
- Employment tribunals cannot hear claims of human trafficking or modern slavery – those must be pursued through other legal channels.
- If you receive a strike out warning from the tribunal, respond promptly with any evidence or arguments, even if you are unwell.
This case shows the strict procedural hurdles that claimants must clear before their case can be heard. The agency worker had only a few months' work with Syft Online Limited, but brought a wide-ranging claim including unfair dismissal, unpaid wages, breach of contract, and even allegations of human exploitation and modern slavery.
What went wrong for the claimant
The tribunal identified multiple fundamental problems. First, the unfair dismissal claim was doomed from the start – the law requires two years' continuous employment, and the claimant had only four months. Second, the wage and contract claims were brought more than a month after the legal deadline, and the medical notes provided did not cover the critical period or explain why the claim couldn't be filed on time. Third, the tribunal simply has no power to hear allegations of modern slavery or human exploitation; those are matters for criminal authorities.
What the respondent did right
Syft Online Limited acted promptly by applying to strike out the claims, pointing out the lack of jurisdiction and the time bar. The tribunal had already issued a strike out warning, but the claimant did not respond. Even when the claimant later asked for reconsideration citing ill health, the tribunal found that the medical evidence was insufficient to justify the delay in filing.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that employment tribunals operate within strict legal limits. Even a sympathetic claimant with genuine health problems cannot bypass the basic rules on service length and time limits. Anyone considering a tribunal claim should first check whether they have the required service, whether their claim is in time, and whether the tribunal has the power to hear it. Seeking early advice from a solicitor or an advice agency like Citizens Advice can save time and disappointment.
Similar cases
Production operative dismissed during long-term sick leave: unfair dismissal claim fails on service
A production operative who was dismissed while on sick leave for plantar fasciitis and depression lost her unfair dismissal claim because she had less than two years' service. All disability discrimination claims were also dismissed.
Agency healthcare assistant's unfair dismissal and discrimination claims struck out as out of time
An agency healthcare assistant's claims against the Secretary of State for Justice were dismissed after the tribunal found it had no jurisdiction over her unfair dismissal claim and her discrimination claims were presented two days late.
Dismissed for failing to attend meetings while on sick leave: claim struck out as too late
A former McDonald's crew member lost his unfair dismissal claim because he contacted Acas more than three months after the deadline, despite visiting the tribunal earlier. The claim was struck out as out of time.
Teaching assistant's unfair dismissal claim thrown out as 415 days late
A teaching assistant who was dismissed on ill-health grounds had her unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims struck out after presenting them 415 days late. The tribunal found no explanation for the delay and no jurisdiction to hear the case.