Whistleblowing amendment refused after unfair dismissal claim struck out for insufficient service
A former employee who tried to add whistleblowing and harassment claims months after her unfair dismissal claim was struck out for lack of two years' service. The tribunal refused the amendment due to delay and prejudice to the employer.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #preliminary-hearing
- #amendment-refused
- #strike-out
- #two-year-service-requirement
- #litigant-in-person
Key facts
- The claimant was employed by the respondent from 2018 until dismissal on 8 July 2020, less than two years.
- The claimant's ET1 claim form, submitted on 18 August 2020, only alleged unfair dismissal.
- The claimant applied to amend her claim to add whistleblowing and harassment complaints in December 2020.
- The respondent's HR manager and the alleged harasser had left employment, causing prejudice to the respondent.
- The tribunal refused the amendment application due to delay, weak prospects, and prejudice to the respondent.
- The unfair dismissal claim was struck out because the claimant lacked two years' continuous service.
Timeline
-
Start of employment
The claimant began a new contract of employment with the respondent.
-
Alleged protected disclosure
The claimant raised concerns about lack of Covid precautions with HR manager Ms Palmer.
-
Alleged harassment
The claimant alleges Mr Walker repeatedly called her a 'Jewish princess' and she reported this to Ms Palmer.
-
Dismissal
The claimant was dismissed by the respondent.
-
Claim presented
The claimant submitted an ET1 claim for unfair dismissal.
-
Tribunal letter
The tribunal wrote to the claimant advising that she may not have sufficient service for unfair dismissal.
-
Application to amend
The claimant responded, seeking to add whistleblowing and harassment complaints.
-
Preliminary hearing
The tribunal heard the amendment application and struck out the unfair dismissal claim.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether to allow the claimant to amend her claim to add whistleblowing and harassment complaints, and whether it had jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim given the claimant had less than two years' continuous employment.
The outcome
The tribunal refused the claimant's application to amend her claim to add whistleblowing and harassment complaints. The amendment was made five months after the original claim, the new claims had weak prospects of success, and the respondent would be prejudiced because its HR manager and the alleged harasser had left employment.
The unfair dismissal claim was struck out because the claimant had not been continuously employed for at least two years at the date of dismissal, as required by section 108(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
No compensation was awarded as the claim was dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Check the two-year service requirement before bringing an unfair dismissal claim – if you have less than two years' service, you cannot bring a standard unfair dismissal claim unless you can show an automatically unfair reason.
- If you want to add new claims to an existing tribunal claim, do so as soon as possible – delay can lead to refusal, especially if witnesses have left or evidence has gone stale.
- Always copy the other party on all correspondence with the tribunal – failing to do so can cause procedural delays and harm your case.
- Whistleblowing and discrimination claims do not require two years' service, but you must include them in your initial claim or apply to amend promptly.
- If you are a litigant in person, seek advice early – the tribunal's letter warning about the service issue gave the claimant a chance to amend, but the delay and weak prospects worked against her.
This case highlights the strict procedural requirements that can trip up claimants, especially those representing themselves. The former employee was dismissed after less than two years' service and initially claimed only unfair dismissal. When the tribunal warned her that she lacked the qualifying service, she tried to add whistleblowing and harassment claims – but by then, five months had passed and key witnesses had left the company.
What went wrong for the claimant
The tribunal found that the amendment application was made too late, the new claims had limited prospects of success, and allowing them would unfairly prejudice the employer. The HR manager and the alleged harasser had both left, making it hard for the respondent to defend itself. The claimant also failed to copy the respondent on her amendment letter, which caused further delay.
Why the result matters
This case is a reminder that the two-year service requirement for unfair dismissal is a hard barrier – unless you can bring an automatically unfair claim (like whistleblowing or discrimination) from the start. It also shows that tribunals will not automatically allow amendments, especially if they are made late and would cause prejudice. For anyone considering a tribunal claim, the key lesson is to act quickly, include all potential claims in the initial ET1, and keep the other side copied on all correspondence.
Similar cases
Postwoman dismissed over COVID self-isolation: claim out of time
A postwoman with 20 years' service was dismissed for breaking COVID self-isolation rules, but her unfair dismissal claim was rejected because she filed it too late. The tribunal also refused to add a disability discrimination claim.
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.
Claims struck out after housing officer failed to serve witness statement
A former housing officer's unfair dismissal and discrimination claims were struck out after she repeatedly failed to serve a witness statement, despite extensions and warnings. She was also ordered to pay £3,870 in costs.
Site Manager with 8 months' service loses unfair dismissal claim
A site manager who was dismissed after just eight months had his unfair dismissal claim struck out for lack of qualifying service. His race discrimination claims were allowed to proceed but subject to a £100 deposit order.