Agency worker's prior service not counted for unfair dismissal claim
A clinical research associate who worked through an agency for three years before being directly employed was unable to bring an unfair dismissal claim because she had less than two years' continuous service as an employee.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #agency-worker
- #independent-contractor
- #ir35
- #tripartite-relationship
- #continuous-service
Key facts
- The claimant provided services to the respondent through an agency, Clinical Professionals Limited, from July 2017.
- The claimant was a director of Chancegate Limited, which contracted with the agency.
- The claimant refused an offer of direct employment in 2018.
- The claimant was directly employed by the respondent from July 2020.
- The claimant was dismissed on 7 December 2021.
- The claimant had less than two years' continuous service as an employee at the date of dismissal.
Timeline
-
Agency agreement signed
Chancegate Limited entered into a contract with Clinical Professionals Limited (CPL) to supply services.
-
Started work for respondent
The claimant began providing services to Astrazeneca UK Limited through CPL as a clinical research associate.
-
Declined direct employment
The claimant refused an offer of direct employment with the respondent due to salary package concerns.
-
Role change to study delivery manager
The claimant became a study delivery manager, managing UK clinical trials and overseeing clinical research associates.
-
IR35 review initiated
The respondent notified the claimant of pending IR35 changes and reviewed her role.
-
IR35 appeal successful
QDOS determined the claimant's role was 'out of scope' for IR35 after her appeal.
-
Accepted direct employment
The claimant accepted an employed position as local study manager with a joining bonus of £2,000.
-
Dismissal
The claimant was dismissed from her employment.
-
Preliminary hearing
The tribunal heard evidence on the issue of continuous service.
-
Judgment issued
The tribunal dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction due to insufficient continuous service.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's period working through an agency as an independent contractor counted towards the two-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims.
The outcome
The tribunal decided it did not have jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant lacked the required two years' continuous service as an employee.
- The claimant had worked for Astrazeneca UK Limited through an agency and her own limited company from July 2017, but was not an employee during that time.
- She became a direct employee of Astrazeneca in July 2020 and was dismissed in December 2021, giving her only about 17 months of continuous service.
- The tribunal found no basis to treat the earlier agency work as part of continuous employment.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you work through an agency or your own limited company, those periods generally do not count towards the two-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims.
- Accepting direct employment with the same organisation does not automatically link back to previous agency work for continuous service purposes.
- Check your employment status carefully before bringing a claim – the tribunal will strictly apply the two-year service requirement.
This case highlights a common trap for workers who move from agency or contractor arrangements into direct employment. The claimant had provided services to Astrazeneca UK Limited for over four years in total, but only the final 17 months as a direct employee counted towards the continuous service needed to bring an unfair dismissal claim.
What went wrong
The claimant worked through her own limited company, Chancegate Limited, which contracted with an agency. This arrangement meant she was not an employee of Astrazeneca during that period. Even though she performed the same role and worked on site, the legal structure of her engagement meant she could not rely on that time to meet the two-year qualifying period.
Astrazeneca had offered her direct employment in 2018, but she declined due to salary concerns. When she later accepted a direct role in 2020, the clock started afresh. By the time she was dismissed in December 2021, she had only 17 months of continuous service.
Why the result matters
The tribunal's decision is a reminder that employment status is determined by the actual contractual and working arrangements, not by the length of time spent with the same organisation. Workers who value employment rights should consider whether agency or limited company arrangements are right for them, especially if they anticipate needing protection from unfair dismissal.
For employers, the case shows that offering direct employment early can help limit exposure to claims, but it does not create retrospective service. The strict application of the two-year rule means that even long-serving contractors may have no claim if they are dismissed soon after becoming employees.
Similar cases
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.
Agency mental health worker's whistleblowing claim dismissed: safety concerns not a protected disclosure
An Approved Mental Health Professional who withdrew from work citing serious danger lost his whistleblowing and health and safety detriment claims. The tribunal found his concerns did not amount to a protected disclosure or a reasonable belief of imminent danger.
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 employment status claims dismissed: no contract with end-user
An agency worker who claimed unfair dismissal, sex discrimination and equal pay against the end-user and hirer lost all claims after the tribunal found he was not an employee of either respondent.