Probationary dismissal claim struck out due to insufficient service and late filing
A sales executive dismissed during probation for poor performance had his unfair dismissal and race discrimination claims thrown out because he lacked two years' service and filed his claim 17 days late.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Sales Executive from 23 September 2020 to 19 May 2021.
- The claimant was dismissed during his probationary period for failure to meet conduct and performance standards.
- The claimant had less than two years' continuous service at the date of dismissal.
- The claimant presented his claim 17 days late on 6 September 2021.
- The claimant did not provide a reasonable explanation for the delay in presenting his claim.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant commenced employment as a Sales Executive – New Cars at the Colindale outlet.
-
Furlough started
Claimant was furloughed from 28 October 2020 to 3 December 2020.
-
Second furlough period
Claimant was furloughed from 21 December 2020 to 1 March 2021.
-
Dismissal
Claimant's employment terminated due to failure to meet conduct and performance standards during probation.
-
Appeal hearing
Claimant's appeal against dismissal was considered.
-
Appeal outcome
Appeal dismissed by letter dated 12 July 2021.
-
ACAS early conciliation started
Claimant applied to ACAS.
-
ACAS certificate issued
Claimant received ACAS certificate, extending the time limit to 20 August 2021.
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented his claim to the Employment Tribunal, 17 days late.
-
Preliminary hearing
Open preliminary hearing to consider strike out and time limit issues.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the unfair dismissal claim could proceed despite the claimant having only 8 months' service, and whether the race discrimination claim should be struck out for being out of time.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed both claims.
- Unfair dismissal: The claimant had only 8 months' service, well short of the two-year qualifying period. The claim was struck out.
- Race discrimination: The claim was presented 17 days after the time limit expired. The claimant gave no reasonable explanation for the delay, so it was not just and equitable to extend time.
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 the dismissal is for an automatically unfair reason.
- Race discrimination claims must be lodged with the tribunal within three months of the alleged act, minus the ACAS early conciliation period. Late claims are almost always rejected.
- If you miss the tribunal deadline, you must provide a compelling reason for the delay. Personal circumstances or ignorance of the law are rarely accepted as excuses.
- Probationary periods do not give employees extra legal protection; the same service requirements apply.
What this case shows in practice
This case highlights two common hurdles that trip up claimants: the two-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal and the strict time limits for discrimination claims. The claimant, a sales executive at Mercedes Benz Retail Group Ltd, was dismissed during his probationary period after just 8 months' service. He believed his dismissal was unfair and motivated by race, but the tribunal never reached the merits of his case.
What the respondent did right
Mercedes Benz Retail Group Ltd successfully argued that the unfair dismissal claim had no legal basis because the claimant lacked the required two years' continuous service. For the race discrimination claim, they pointed out that the claimant filed his claim 17 days late and offered no reasonable explanation for the delay. The tribunal agreed, noting that the claimant's reasons—such as waiting for an appeal outcome—did not justify missing the deadline.
Why the result matters
This case is a reminder that procedural rules can be as decisive as the facts of the dispute. Even if a dismissal feels unfair, the tribunal can only hear claims that meet strict legal requirements. Employees considering a tribunal claim should check their qualifying service and act quickly to meet time limits, ideally with legal advice. For employers, the case confirms that dismissing a probationary employee for poor performance is unlikely to lead to a successful unfair dismissal claim if the employee has less than two years' service.
Similar cases
Former employee's race discrimination claim dismissed but holiday pay awarded
A former employee's claim for unfair dismissal and race discrimination failed due to time limits, but the tribunal awarded £243.54 for unpaid holiday pay.
Bus driver dismissed for using phone while driving: insufficient service bars unfair dismissal claim
A bus driver with only 7 weeks' service was dismissed for gross misconduct after using his mobile phone while driving. The tribunal struck out his unfair dismissal and race discrimination claims.
Radiographer's unfair dismissal claim dismissed as out of time
An NHS radiographer who was dismissed over right-to-work concerns had her unfair dismissal claim rejected because she presented it 18 days late. The tribunal found she could have filed on time.
Less than two years' service: unfair dismissal claim struck out against Marks and Spencer
A former employee with under two years' service had her unfair dismissal claim struck out. All remaining discrimination and wrongful dismissal claims were dismissed after a full hearing.