Marketing agent through own company lacked two years' service for unfair dismissal claim
A former employee who worked through his own company before becoming an employee had his unfair dismissal claim struck out because he had less than two years' continuous service as an employee.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #strike-out
- #agency-worker
- #employee-status
- #continuous-employment
- #notice-pay-paid
- #holiday-pay-paid
Key facts
- The claimant worked for the respondent through his own company GVS Ltd under an agency agreement from February to September 2020.
- The claimant became an employee of the respondent on 1 October 2020 and was dismissed on 19 August 2022.
- The claimant admitted he had been paid all notice pay and holiday pay due on termination.
- The claimant had less than two years' continuous employment as an employee, so he lacked the qualifying service for an unfair dismissal claim.
- The claimant's claims were struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success.
Timeline
-
GVS Ltd incorporated
The claimant's company GVS Ltd was incorporated.
-
Agency agreement started
The claimant, through GVS Ltd, entered into a marketing agency agreement with the respondent.
-
Agency agreement terminated
The agency agreement was terminated by a deed of termination.
-
Employment contract started
The claimant became an employee of the respondent under a part-time employment contract.
-
Employment terminated
The claimant's employment with the respondent ended.
-
Claim presented
The claimant submitted claims of unfair dismissal, notice pay, and holiday pay.
-
Strike out warning sent
The tribunal sent the claimant a strike out warning letter regarding the unfair dismissal claim.
-
Respondent's strike out application
The respondent applied to strike out all claims.
-
Strike out hearing
The tribunal heard the strike out application.
-
Judgment issued
The tribunal struck out all claims as having no reasonable prospect of success.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant had at least two years' continuous employment to bring an unfair dismissal claim, and whether his claims for notice pay and holiday pay had any reasonable prospect of success.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out all of the claimant's claims as having no reasonable prospect of success.
- The unfair dismissal claim failed because the claimant had only 22 months' continuous employment as an employee (from 1 October 2020 to 19 August 2022). The period before that, when he worked through his own company under an agency agreement, did not count as employment.
- The claims for notice pay and holiday pay were also struck out because the claimant admitted he had been paid all amounts due on termination.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you work through your own limited company, that period usually does not count towards continuous employment for unfair dismissal purposes.
- You generally need two years' continuous service as an employee to bring an unfair dismissal claim in England and Wales.
- Check your employment contract start date carefully – if you have less than two years' service, you may have no protection against unfair dismissal.
- If you have been paid all notice and holiday pay on termination, claims for those payments are unlikely to succeed.
When working through your own company doesn't count
This case shows the importance of understanding how continuous employment is calculated for unfair dismissal claims. The claimant worked for Vatech Dental Manufacturing Limited through his own company, GVS Ltd, under an agency agreement from February to September 2020. He then became a direct employee on 1 October 2020 and was dismissed on 19 August 2022 – a period of just under 22 months.
The two-year qualifying period
Under UK employment law, employees generally need two years' continuous service to bring an unfair dismissal claim. The claimant argued that his time working through GVS Ltd should count towards that period, but the tribunal disagreed. The agency agreement was a commercial contract between two companies, not an employment relationship. The claimant was not obliged to work, was paid commission only, and even claimed furlough through his own company – not through the respondent.
What the respondent did right
The respondent applied to strike out the claim early, and the tribunal agreed there was no reasonable prospect of success. The claimant had also admitted he received all notice pay and holiday pay due, so those claims were also struck out. For employers, this case reinforces that properly structured agency arrangements can protect against later claims of employment status – but only if the paperwork reflects the reality of the relationship.
What this means for similar claims
For workers considering a claim, the key takeaway is to check your continuous employment dates carefully. If you have worked through a limited company or as a contractor, that time is unlikely to count towards the two-year qualifying period unless there is evidence of an employment relationship. The tribunal will look at the actual terms and conduct of the working arrangement, not just what the worker feels about their integration into the business.
Similar cases
Founder's unfair dismissal claim struck out: no continuous employment before TUPE transfer
A former CEO who founded the business could not show he was an employee of the transferor company, so his unfair dismissal claim was struck out for lack of continuous service.
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 worker's disability discrimination claim struck out against agency
A former sterile cleaning supervisor had her disability discrimination claim against an employment agency struck out after she could not identify any discriminatory act by the agency.
Agency worker's whistleblowing claim: interim relief refused over employment status
An agency worker who claimed she was dismissed for whistleblowing had her interim relief application refused because she could not show a 'pretty good chance' of proving she was an employee of the respondent.
