Estate Manager dismissed just before two-year service threshold: claim fails for lack of jurisdiction
An Estate Manager who was dismissed days before reaching two years' service lost his unfair dismissal claim because the tribunal found the effective date of termination was before the qualifying period.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #estate-manager
- #two-year-service-requirement
- #effective-date-of-termination
- #dismissal-without-notice
Key facts
- The claimant started employment as an Estate Manager on 17 September 2018.
- The respondent terminated the claimant's employment on 9 September 2020.
- The claimant did not have 2 years' continuous service by the effective date of termination.
- The claimant was paid 4 weeks' pay in lieu of notice.
- The claimant's email on 10 September 2020 referred to 'termination of my employment'.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
James Cartwright started working for Juniper Hill Ltd as an Estate Manager.
-
Meeting with Mr Gilbert
Mr Gilbert met with the claimant and informed him that his employment could not continue, offering the option to resign or be dismissed. The respondent contends the claimant was dismissed with immediate effect.
-
Claimant's email
The claimant sent an email stating 'Further to the termination of my employment' and requested final salary calculation.
-
Termination letter
The respondent sent a termination letter confirming dismissal with immediate effect on 9 September 2020 and 4 weeks' pay in lieu of notice.
-
Preliminary hearing
Employment Judge Balogun heard the case via video conference and dismissed the claims for lack of jurisdiction due to insufficient service.
-
Judgment sent to parties
The written judgment was sent to the parties.
-
Written reasons issued
Employment Judge Balogun issued written reasons for the judgment.
-
Reconsideration application
The claimant applied for reconsideration of the judgment.
-
Reconsideration refused
Employment Judge Balogun refused the reconsideration application, finding no reasonable prospect of varying the original decision.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide the effective date of termination to determine whether the claimant had at least two years' continuous service, which is a legal requirement for bringing claims of unfair dismissal and a statutory redundancy payment.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claims of unfair dismissal and for a statutory redundancy payment for want of jurisdiction.
The key reason was that the claimant's employment ended on 9 September 2020, which meant he had only 1 year, 11 months and 23 days of continuous service – short of the two-year requirement.
The tribunal preferred the respondent's evidence that the claimant was dismissed with immediate effect, supported by the termination letter and the claimant's own email referring to 'termination of my employment' the day after the meeting.
No compensation was awarded as the claims were dismissed at the jurisdictional stage.
Lessons & takeaways
- Check your continuous service date carefully: you generally need two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal claim in England and Wales.
- If you are close to the two-year mark, any dispute about the effective date of termination can be decisive – keep clear records of when and how your employment ended.
- Emails you send after dismissal can be used as evidence against you: referring to 'termination of my employment' may confirm the employer's version of events.
- If you are offered the choice to resign or be dismissed, make your decision in writing and keep a copy – silence may be interpreted as acceptance of dismissal.
This case shows how the two-year service requirement can act as a hard barrier for unfair dismissal claims, even when the employee is only days short of the threshold. The Estate Manager had started work on 17 September 2018 and was dismissed on 9 September 2020 – just eight days before reaching the qualifying period. The tribunal had to decide the exact date of termination, and the outcome turned on a short email and the employer's account of a meeting.
What the employer did right
The employer, Juniper Hill Ltd, was clearly aware of the approaching two-year mark. The tribunal accepted that this was a factor in the decision to dismiss immediately. By issuing a termination letter confirming the date and paying four weeks' pay in lieu of notice, the employer created a clear paper trail. Crucially, the claimant's own email the next day – referring to 'the termination of my employment' – undermined his later claim that he had been given time to decide whether to resign.
What the claimant could have done differently
The claimant represented himself and did not provide a witness statement. He argued that he had carried out work tasks after 9 September, but the tribunal found these were mostly related to handing over tied accommodation, not employment duties. If he had kept a diary of work activities or obtained written confirmation of any agreed extension, the outcome might have been different. The tribunal also noted that he never communicated a decision about resigning, which weakened his case.
Why this matters
For anyone considering an unfair dismissal claim, the first check is always the length of continuous service. This case is a reminder that the effective date of termination is not always the date you think it is – and that your own words and actions immediately after dismissal can be decisive. Employers, too, should note that acting just before the two-year mark may be lawful, but only if the dismissal is genuinely for a fair reason and properly documented.
Similar cases
Race discrimination claim dismissed as out of time: a lesson in tribunal deadlines
A Branch Care Manager's claim for direct race discrimination and victimisation was dismissed because she presented it 28 days late. The tribunal refused to extend time, finding no just and equitable reason.
TUPE transfer dismissal: tribunal rejects employer's bid to strike out late claim
A tribunal refused an employer's application for a deposit order against a former employee whose unfair dismissal claim was filed one day late, finding he had reasonable prospects of arguing the effective date of termination was after the transfer date.
Dismissed by email: a day's delay that cost the claim
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim was thrown out because he contacted ACAS two days after the three-month deadline, even though he read his dismissal email the day after it was sent.
Unfair dismissal claim struck out: less than two years' service and no garden leave
A technical development manager who believed he was on garden leave had his unfair dismissal claim struck out because he had less than two years' service and the effective date of termination was clear.