Unfair dismissal claim struck out: the two-year service rule and non-attendance
A head of digital who worked for less than two years had her unfair dismissal claim struck out for lack of jurisdiction, and her other claims dismissed after she failed to attend the hearing.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Key facts
- The claimant was employed from 18 December 2019 to 16 August 2021, less than two years.
- The claimant did not attend the hearing and provided no explanation.
- The respondent disputed the claimant's employment status, but the tribunal found she was engaged in some capacity.
- The claimant's ET1 did not refer to any exceptions to the two-year service requirement.
- The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim for lack of jurisdiction and dismissed the other claims due to non-attendance.
Timeline
-
Claimant started engagement with respondent
The claimant began working for the respondent as Head of Digital, Wordpress Developer, or as a director.
-
Claimant left respondent
The claimant's engagement ended on this date.
-
Claimant presented claim
The claimant filed a claim for unfair dismissal, unlawful deductions from wages, and breach of contract.
-
Strike out warning sent
The tribunal sent a letter warning the claimant that her unfair dismissal claim may be struck out due to insufficient service.
-
Deadline for claimant's response
The claimant was given until this date to provide reasons why the unfair dismissal claim should not be struck out, but she did not respond.
-
Notice of Hearing sent
The tribunal sent the notice of hearing for 30-31 January 2023 to both parties.
-
Log-in details emailed
The tribunal emailed the CVP log-in details to both parties.
-
Hearing and judgment
Neither party attended. The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim and dismissed the other claims.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant had the required two years' continuous service to bring an unfair dismissal claim, and whether to dismiss the other claims when the claimant did not attend the hearing.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant had less than two years' continuous service (18 December 2019 to 16 August 2021) and did not fall within any exception to the two-year qualifying period under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The claimant's claims for unlawful deductions from wages and breach of contract were dismissed under Rule 47 because she did not attend the hearing and provided no explanation, despite the tribunal making efforts to contact her.
No compensation was awarded as the claims were dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employees with less than two years' continuous service generally cannot bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim unless they qualify for an exception (e.g., whistleblowing, discrimination).
- If you receive a strike-out warning from the tribunal, you must respond by the deadline or risk losing your claim.
- Always check your contact details on the claim form and notify the tribunal of any changes to avoid missing important communications.
- If you cannot attend a hearing, you must inform the tribunal as soon as possible and explain why; otherwise, your claim may be dismissed in your absence.
This case illustrates two important hurdles for employment tribunal claimants: the two-year service requirement for unfair dismissal, and the need to attend hearings.
The two-year service rule
Under UK law, employees generally need two years' continuous service to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim. The claimant worked for Alive Digital Limited from December 2019 to August 2021 – just over 20 months. The tribunal sent her a warning letter in August 2021, giving her until 23 September 2021 to explain why her claim should not be struck out. She did not respond, and her ET1 did not mention any exception (such as whistleblowing or discrimination). As a result, the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim.
Non-attendance at the hearing
The claimant also brought claims for unlawful deductions from wages and breach of contract. The hearing was listed for 30-31 January 2023, and the tribunal sent the notice of hearing in April 2022 and the CVP log-in details on 27 January 2023. Neither the claimant nor the respondent attended. The tribunal waited until 3pm, emailed the claimant, and checked the waiting rooms – all without response. The judge decided not to postpone, noting the impact on other tribunal users, and dismissed the remaining claims under Rule 47.
What this means for similar claims
For anyone considering an employment tribunal claim, this case is a reminder to check the qualifying period for unfair dismissal and to respond promptly to any tribunal correspondence. If you cannot attend a hearing, you must contact the tribunal immediately. Failing to do so can result in your claim being dismissed without any consideration of the merits.
Similar cases
Unfair dismissal claim struck out: the two-year service rule in action
A former employee with less than two years' service had her unfair dismissal complaint struck out by the tribunal. Other discrimination claims remain pending.
Less than two years' service: unfair dismissal claim struck out
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim was struck out because she had less than two years' service. Her wrongful dismissal claim was dismissed after she failed to attend the hearing.
Server's unfair dismissal claim struck out after failing to engage with tribunal
A restaurant server with less than two years' service had his unfair dismissal claim struck out after he failed to attend hearings or comply with tribunal orders. The tribunal also dismissed his race discrimination claim due to unreasonable conduct.
Claim dismissed after employee fails to attend hearing
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim was struck out after he failed to attend a preliminary hearing and did not provide evidence to show his claim was filed in time.