Care home closure broke employment continuity: unfair dismissal claim fails
A health care assistant who worked for a care home that closed and reopened was found to have insufficient continuous service to bring an unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal ruled there was a break in employment.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #health-care-assistant
- #zero-hours-contract
- #care-home-closure
- #continuity-of-employment
- #temporary-cessation-of-work
Key facts
- The Claimant started working for the Respondent on 27 April 2020 as a Health Care Assistant.
- The care home closed on 18 May 2020 due to a CIW requirement, and the Claimant was told there was no further work.
- The Claimant was not given a written termination letter or P45.
- The Claimant was interviewed and offered a position after the care home reopened, starting work again on 22 December 2020.
- The Claimant became a full-time employee in summer 2022 and was dismissed on 12 September 2022.
Timeline
-
Claimant started work
The Claimant began working for the Respondent as a Health Care Assistant.
-
Care home closed
The care home ceased operating due to a CIW requirement. The Claimant was informed there was no further work.
-
Claimant contacted about timesheets
The Claimant messaged Mr. Huckerby asking where to send timesheets.
-
Payment of £117.27
The Respondent made a payment to the Claimant, found to be for a shift and holiday pay, not a retainer.
-
Claimant interviewed
The Claimant attended an interview for a position at the reopened care home.
-
Claimant signed application form
The Claimant signed a zero-hours terms and conditions form.
-
Approval for reopening
Approval for non-registered services to commence was given.
-
Claimant resumed work
The Claimant undertook her first shift after the interview.
-
Dismissal
The Claimant's employment ended.
The legal issue
Whether the claimant had two years' continuous employment to bring an unfair dismissal claim, specifically whether a break in continuity occurred when the care home closed and she was told there was no further work.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim. It found that the health care assistant's employment ended when the care home closed on 18 May 2020, and she was not re-employed until 22 December 2020. This break meant she did not have the two years' continuous service required for an unfair dismissal claim.
- The claimant started work on 27 April 2020.
- The care home closed on 18 May 2020, and she was told there was no further work.
- She resumed work on 22 December 2020.
- She was dismissed on 12 September 2022, giving only 1 year 9 months of continuous service from December 2020.
- No compensation was awarded as the claim was dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are told there is no work and not given a written termination, you may still be considered dismissed if there is no realistic prospect of re-engagement.
- A gap of more than a week between jobs can break continuity of employment unless it falls under a statutory exception like a temporary cessation of work.
- Keep records of any assurances of re-employment; vague hopes of reopening are not enough to preserve continuity.
- If you are dismissed and rehired later, your continuous service may restart from the re-engagement date.
- For unfair dismissal claims, you generally need two years' continuous service; check your start and end dates carefully.
This case shows how a gap in employment caused by a care home closure can break the continuity needed to bring an unfair dismissal claim. The health care assistant worked for only a few weeks before the home shut down due to regulatory action. She was told there was no further work and was not given a written termination or P45. Months later, the home reopened and she was re-engaged, but the tribunal found that her employment had ended with the closure.
What the tribunal decided
The key issue was whether the period between 18 May 2020 and 22 December 2020 counted as a break in continuous employment. The claimant argued that the closure was a temporary cessation of work, which can preserve continuity under section 212 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. However, the tribunal found that the cessation was not temporary at the time – there was no guarantee of reopening, and the claimant was not given any assurance of re-employment. The fact that she was not issued a P45 or written termination letter did not change the reality that her employment had ended.
What could have been done differently
The respondent could have issued a formal termination letter and P45 to make the position clear. However, the tribunal accepted that the director had told the claimant there was no further work, which was sufficient to end the contract. For the claimant, the lack of any written assurance of re-employment or a promise of a future start date meant that the gap was not a temporary cessation. If she had been given a firm offer of re-employment before the closure, the outcome might have been different.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that continuity of employment is not automatic when there is a gap. Even if you are not given formal paperwork, if your employer tells you there is no work and you are not re-engaged for several months, your service may be broken. For workers on zero-hours contracts or in sectors with seasonal or unpredictable work, it is important to understand that a break of more than a week can reset the clock for unfair dismissal rights.
Similar cases
Dog trainer dismissed after joining union: detriment but not automatic unfair dismissal
A tribunal found that a dog trainer was unfairly dismissed after his employer withdrew a zero-hour contract offer when he joined a trade union, but the decision to dismiss was made before he joined.
Dump truck driver removed from client site: resignation, not dismissal
A dump truck driver on a zero-hours contract claimed he was unfairly dismissed after being removed from a client site, but the tribunal found he resigned. His claim failed.
Constructive dismissal after suspension without pay and ignored grievance
A care worker on a zero-hours contract was constructively and unfairly dismissed after her employer suspended her without pay and failed to respond to her grievance. The tribunal found a fundamental breach of trust and confidence.
Zero-hours pastry chef loses unfair dismissal claim after tribunal finds no dismissal occurred
A pastry chef on a zero-hours contract claimed she was verbally dismissed during a 10-minute meeting, but the tribunal found no dismissal took place and struck out her claims.