Interim contractor's unfair dismissal claim struck out for lack of qualifying service
An interim contractor who worked for the Home Office for six months had his unfair dismissal claim struck out because he lacked two years' qualifying service. He was also ordered to pay £1,500 in costs after withdrawing his remaining claims on the first day of the final hearing.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #strike-out
- #lack-of-qualifying-service
- #costs-order
- #late-withdrawal
- #unreasonable-conduct
Key facts
- The claimant was engaged as an interim contractor through an agency, not as an employee of the Home Office.
- The unfair dismissal complaint was struck out because the claimant lacked two years' qualifying service.
- The claimant withdrew the remaining claims on the first day of the final hearing.
- The respondent was awarded costs of £1,500 due to the claimant's unreasonable conduct.
- The claimant had three different legal representatives during the proceedings.
Timeline
-
Claimant started contract
The claimant began working as an interim contractor through Public Sector Resourcing for the Home Office.
-
Contract ended
The claimant's six-month contract ended. His final timesheet was submitted but not paid until late April 2021.
-
Claim presented
The claimant presented a claim for unfair dismissal, race discrimination, and other complaints.
-
Strike-out warning
The tribunal warned the claimant that the unfair dismissal complaint might be struck out due to lack of qualifying service.
-
Preliminary hearing
Employment Judge Wright held a preliminary hearing; the claimant was represented by Mr Frew.
-
Unfair dismissal struck out
Employment Judge Wright struck out the unfair dismissal complaint for lack of qualifying service.
-
Case management decision
Employment Judge Wright limited the remaining claims to direct discrimination, harassment, and breach of contract regarding late payment, and imposed a deposit order.
-
Final hearing – claimant withdrew
The claimant attended by video and withdrew his claim after the tribunal refused a postponement.
-
Costs judgment
Employment Judge Ferguson ordered the claimant to pay £1,500 in costs to the respondent.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the contractor had the right to bring an unfair dismissal claim despite not being an employee with two years' service, and whether costs should be awarded for unreasonable conduct.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because the claimant did not have two years' qualifying service, as required by section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The remaining claims were withdrawn by the claimant on the first day of the final hearing after the tribunal refused a postponement.
- The claimant was ordered to pay £1,500 in costs to the Home Office due to his unreasonable conduct, including pursuing claims with no reasonable prospect of success and withdrawing at the last minute.
- No compensation was awarded as the claim was dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Check your employment status: interim contractors and agency workers are often not employees and may not have the right to claim unfair dismissal.
- You need two years' continuous service to bring an unfair dismissal claim, unless the dismissal is for an automatically unfair reason like whistleblowing.
- Withdrawing a claim on the first day of the final hearing can lead to a costs order if the tribunal considers your conduct unreasonable.
- Ensure your claim form is properly completed and provides sufficient detail to avoid strike-out or costs sanctions.
This case shows the importance of understanding employment status and qualifying service before bringing an unfair dismissal claim. The claimant worked as an interim contractor for the Home Office for just six months, but argued he was an employee. However, the tribunal found he did not have the necessary two years' continuous service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and struck it out.
What went wrong
The claimant's case was also hampered by poor conduct. He had three different legal representatives during the proceedings, and his original claim form was described by the tribunal as 'extremely poor quality'. He failed to respond to a strike-out warning about the unfair dismissal claim, and only withdrew his remaining claims on the first day of the final hearing after a postponement was refused. This last-minute withdrawal led to a costs order of £1,500.
What the Home Office could have done differently
The Home Office acted reasonably throughout, defending the claim on jurisdictional grounds and seeking costs when the claimant's conduct became unreasonable. The tribunal noted that the claimant's claims had little prospect of success from the outset, and the respondent should not have had to incur the costs of a final hearing.
Why this matters
For anyone considering an employment tribunal claim, this case is a reminder that unfair dismissal rights are not automatic. Agency workers and contractors should check their employment status and length of service before bringing a claim. It also highlights that pursuing weak claims or withdrawing at the last minute can result in a costs order, even in the tribunal where costs are rarely awarded.
Similar cases
Claim struck out for failing to comply with tribunal orders
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim against Gateshead Health NHS Foundation Trust was struck out after he failed to comply with tribunal orders and did not respond to correspondence. He was ordered to pay £187.50 in costs.
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.
Protected disclosure claim struck out: disclosure made after dismissal cannot save unfair dismissal case
A locum lawyer's claim for automatic unfair dismissal over alleged whistleblowing was struck out because the disclosure came months after his engagement ended. He was also ordered to pay £8,000 in costs for unreasonable conduct.
Costs of £4,490 for bringing a claim with no reasonable prospect of success
A former employee who brought claims of unfair dismissal, disability discrimination and holiday pay arrears has been ordered to pay £4,490 in costs after failing to attend hearings and ignoring a Calderbank offer.