Unfair dismissal claim struck out due to less than two years' service
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim was struck out because they had worked for the respondent for less than two years. The tribunal also dealt with a default judgment for unauthorised deductions, which was later revoked.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed for less than two years.
- The respondent failed to present a valid response on time.
- The respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages of £640 gross.
- The unfair dismissal complaint was struck out due to lack of qualifying service.
- The default judgment for unauthorised deductions was later revoked and the response accepted.
Timeline
-
Claim issued
The claim was issued in the Midlands East Employment Tribunals.
-
First judgment on unfair dismissal
Employment Judge Ahmed struck out the unfair dismissal complaint due to insufficient service.
-
Default judgment on unauthorised deductions
Employment Judge Hutchinson issued a default judgment ordering the respondent to pay £640 for unauthorised deductions.
-
Preliminary hearing
A preliminary hearing was held by CVP at Nottingham Employment Tribunal before Employment Judge Hutchinson.
-
Final judgment
Employment Judge Hutchinson revoked the default judgment, accepted the response, and issued case management directions.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant had sufficient service to bring an unfair dismissal claim, and whether a default judgment for unauthorised deductions should be revoked after the respondent filed a late response.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant had been employed for less than two years, which is the minimum qualifying period for bringing such a claim under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal also initially issued a default judgment ordering the respondent to pay £640 for unauthorised deductions, but later revoked that judgment after accepting the respondent's late response. The case will now proceed on the other complaints.
Compensation breakdown:
- Unauthorised deductions: £640 (gross)
Lessons & takeaways
- Employees with less than two years' continuous service generally cannot bring an unfair dismissal claim, unless the dismissal is for an automatically unfair reason.
- If an employer fails to respond to a tribunal claim on time, a default judgment may be issued, but it can be revoked if the employer shows good reason for the delay.
- Unauthorised deduction claims do not require a minimum length of service, so they can be brought even if the employee has worked for a short period.
This case shows how the two-year service requirement for unfair dismissal claims can be a hard barrier, regardless of the circumstances of the dismissal. The claimant, a former employee of Pearce Recruitment Limited (trading as Accept Recruitment), had worked for the company for less than two years. When they brought an unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal was obliged to strike it out because the law requires a minimum of two years' continuous service for most unfair dismissal complaints.
What the employer could have done differently
The respondent initially failed to file a valid response to the claim, leading to a default judgment for unauthorised deductions of £640. However, the company later applied to have that judgment revoked, and the tribunal accepted their explanation. This highlights that employers who miss deadlines can still have a second chance if they act promptly and provide a reasonable excuse.
Why this matters for similar claims
For employees, this case is a reminder that the two-year qualifying period is a strict rule. Unless the dismissal is for an automatically unfair reason (such as whistleblowing or asserting a statutory right), short-service employees cannot pursue an unfair dismissal claim. However, other claims, such as unauthorised deductions from wages, do not have a service requirement and can be brought regardless of how long the employee has worked.
The case also illustrates the tribunal's procedural flexibility: a default judgment can be revoked if the respondent shows good cause, allowing the case to proceed on its merits.
Similar cases
Default judgment against Zobra Limited for unpaid wages, notice and holiday pay
A former employee won £1,819 after Zobra Limited failed to respond to claims of unauthorised wage deductions, breach of contract and unpaid holiday. Claims for unfair dismissal and redundancy were struck out due to insufficient service.
Unfair dismissal claim struck out due to insufficient service: lessons on the two-year qualifying period
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim was struck out because they had worked for less than two years. Their breach of contract claim also failed, but they were entitled to £90.28 holiday pay.
Pregnant employee wins £10,282 after employer fails to defend claims
A former employee has been awarded £10,282 after her employer, Heavenly Body Ltd, failed to attend hearings or respond to claims of unfair dismissal and pregnancy discrimination.
£100,000 award after employer fails to defend unfair dismissal claim
A former employee with 17 years' service was awarded over £100,000 after his employer failed to engage with the tribunal process, leading to a default judgment and strike-out of their response.