Claim dismissed: train maintainer lacked two years' continuous employment
A preliminary hearing ruled that a train maintainer did not have sufficient continuous employment to bring an unfair dismissal claim, as his earlier work was as a self-employed contractor.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #continuous-employment
- #employee-status
- #self-employed-contractor
- #preliminary-hearing
- #burden-of-proof
Key facts
- The claimant worked for the respondent from 7 November 2017 to 10 June 2021.
- The respondent argued the claimant was a self-employed contractor via Morson International until 23 June 2019.
- The claimant had no written evidence of an employment contract before 24 June 2019.
- The claimant's own grievance referred to working as a sub-contractor via his private limited company.
- The claimant did not attend the hearing due to a family emergency.
Timeline
-
Interview for Train Maintainer role
The claimant was interviewed for the role of Train Maintainer at Ruislip Depot.
-
Start of work for respondent
The claimant began working for the respondent, but via Morson International as a self-employed contractor.
-
Offer of permanent employment
The respondent offered the claimant a permanent position as Train Maintainer, effective from 24 June 2019.
-
Start of employment as employee
The claimant's employment as an employee of London Underground Limited commenced.
-
Claimant's grievance
The claimant submitted a grievance referring to his previous service as a sub-contractor via his private limited company.
-
Effective date of termination
The claimant's employment was terminated, agreed by both parties as the effective date.
-
Claim presented
The claimant presented a claim for unfair dismissal and unpaid wages/holiday pay.
-
Preliminary hearing
A hearing was held to determine whether the claimant had sufficient continuous employment for an unfair dismissal claim.
-
Judgment issued
Employment Judge Hyams issued a judgment dismissing the claims due to insufficient continuous employment.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant had two years' continuous employment as an employee under the Employment Rights Act 1996, which required determining his employment status before 24 June 2019.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal claim because he did not have the required two years' continuous employment.
The key reason was that the claimant had worked as a self-employed contractor via Morson International until 23 June 2019, and only became an employee of London Underground Limited on 24 June 2019. The claimant's own grievance referred to his earlier work as a sub-contractor via his private limited company, and he had no written evidence of an employment contract before that date.
No compensation was awarded as the claim was dismissed at a preliminary stage.
Lessons & takeaways
- Check your employment status from day one: if you are a contractor or agency worker, those years may not count towards continuous employment for unfair dismissal claims.
- Keep written evidence of your employment contract and any changes in status to avoid disputes about when your employment began.
- If you are unsure about your continuous service, seek legal advice before bringing an unfair dismissal claim, as the two-year qualifying period is strictly enforced.
- Even if you have worked for the same organisation for years, a gap or change in employment status can reset the clock for continuous employment.
This case shows how crucial the two-year continuous employment requirement is for unfair dismissal claims. The claimant had worked for London Underground Limited for over three years in total, but because his first 18 months were as a self-employed contractor, he fell just short of the qualifying period.
The tribunal focused on objective evidence of the relationship. The claimant had no written employment contract before June 2019, and his own grievance referred to working as a sub-contractor via his limited company. This made it impossible to argue he was an employee from the start.
What could London Underground have done differently? They already had clear documentation showing the change in status. The real lesson is for workers: if you start as a contractor, get clarity on when you become an employee and keep records. The claimant did not attend the hearing due to a family emergency, but his representative could not provide evidence to change the outcome.
For anyone considering a similar claim, this case is a reminder that the tribunal looks at the legal reality, not just the length of service. Even if you feel like part of the team, your employment status on paper matters. If you are a contractor or agency worker, those years may not count towards the two-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal.
Similar cases
Founder's unfair dismissal claim struck out: no continuous employment before TUPE transfer
A former CEO who founded the business could not show he was an employee of the transferor company, so his unfair dismissal claim was struck out for lack of continuous service.
ADHD disability claim fails for lack of medical evidence
A former employee who claimed disability discrimination based on ADHD had her claim dismissed after the tribunal found she had not proven she had the condition on the balance of probabilities.
Director and employee wins holiday pay but loses constructive dismissal claim
A former director and employee was awarded £566.49 for unpaid holiday leave but failed to prove constructive dismissal after resigning amid trust issues.
Marketing agent through own company lacked two years' service for unfair dismissal claim
A former employee who worked through his own company before becoming an employee had his unfair dismissal claim struck out because he had less than two years' continuous service as an employee.