Unfair dismissal claim struck out due to less than two years' service
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim against Leicester City Council was struck out because he had less than two years' service. His subsequent applications for relief from sanction and reconsideration were also refused.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #strike-out
- #lack-of-jurisdiction
- #less-than-two-years-service
- #relief-from-sanction
- #reconsideration
Key facts
- The claimant was employed by the respondent for less than two years.
- The claimant's unfair dismissal complaint was struck out for lack of jurisdiction.
- The claimant failed to comply with an Unless Order and his claim was dismissed on 16 March 2022.
- The claimant applied for relief from sanction out of time and did not attend the hearing on 2 November 2022.
- The claimant's applications for reconsideration were refused.
Timeline
-
Claim submitted
The claimant submitted his claim to the Employment Tribunal.
-
Unfair dismissal complaint struck out
Employment Judge Ahmed struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because the claimant had less than two years' service.
-
Preliminary hearing and Unless Order
The parties attended a telephone preliminary hearing where the claimant was subject to an Unless Order.
-
Claim dismissed
The claimant failed to comply with the Unless Order and his claim was dismissed.
-
Application for relief from sanction
The claimant emailed the tribunal, which was treated as an application for relief from sanction.
-
Hearing on relief from sanction
The claimant did not attend; the tribunal refused the application to hear the relief from sanction out of time.
-
First reconsideration application
The claimant applied for reconsideration of the 2 November 2022 judgment.
-
First reconsideration refused
Employment Judge Victoria Butler refused the first reconsideration application.
-
Second reconsideration refused
Employment Judge Victoria Butler refused the second reconsideration application.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint could proceed given his service length, and whether his late applications for relief from sanction and reconsideration should be granted.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint for lack of jurisdiction because he had less than two years' service. The claimant then failed to comply with an Unless Order, leading to the dismissal of his claim. His subsequent applications for relief from sanction (made out of time) and for reconsideration were refused. No compensation was awarded.
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.
- Failure to comply with tribunal orders, such as an Unless Order, can result in your claim being dismissed without a hearing.
- If you miss a deadline, apply for relief from sanction promptly and explain why the delay was unavoidable.
- Tribunals expect you to attend hearings unless you have a very good reason; a fit note for work may not be sufficient to show you cannot attend a hearing.
This case illustrates the strict procedural requirements that apply in employment tribunals, particularly for claimants with less than two years' service. The former employee brought an unfair dismissal claim against Leicester City Council, but the tribunal struck it out at an early stage because he did not meet the qualifying period of continuous employment. This is a common barrier for many workers, as the right to claim unfair dismissal generally requires at least two years' service.
The procedural pitfalls
After the strike-out, the claimant was given an opportunity to comply with an Unless Order, but he failed to do so. As a result, his entire claim was dismissed. He then applied for relief from sanction, but that application was made late, and he did not attend the hearing to argue it. The tribunal refused to hear the application out of time, noting that the medical evidence he provided was not sufficient to explain his absence.
The claimant also applied for reconsideration twice, but both were refused because there was no reasonable prospect of the original decision being changed. The tribunal emphasised that the claimant had been given multiple chances to put his case forward but had not taken them.
What this means for similar claims
This case is a reminder that employment tribunals expect parties to follow rules and deadlines strictly. If you have less than two years' service, you should check whether your dismissal falls into an automatically unfair category (such as whistleblowing or discrimination) before bringing a claim. And if you miss a deadline, act quickly and provide a clear explanation. Failing to attend hearings without a strong reason can seriously harm your case.
Similar cases
Former employee's unfair dismissal claim struck out after failing to engage with tribunal
A former employee who failed to attend hearings and ignored tribunal orders had his unfair dismissal claim struck out. The tribunal also noted he had less than two years' service, which normally bars such claims.
Unfair dismissal claim struck out: the two-year service rule in action
A former employee of the University of Bradford had his unfair dismissal claim struck out because he had less than two years' service. His harassment and disability discrimination claims were also struck out for procedural failures.
Less than two years' service: unfair dismissal and redundancy claims struck out, but wages claim succeeds
A former employee who had worked for Velocity Delivery Services Limited for less than two years had their unfair dismissal and redundancy claims struck out, but was awarded £1,985.61 for an unauthorised deduction from wages.
Senior Lecturer's claim struck out after failing to attend preliminary hearing
A tribunal struck out a Senior Lecturer's unfair dismissal and race discrimination claim after he failed to attend a preliminary hearing and did not comply with orders to explain his absence. His application to reconsider was refused.