Less than two years' service: unfair dismissal claim thrown out
A tribunal dismissed an unfair dismissal claim because the employee had not worked for two years, and struck out a race discrimination claim that had no supporting facts.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant presented his claim on 26 January 2022.
- The claimant had less than two years' continuous employment with the respondent.
- The claimant ticked unfair dismissal and breach of contract boxes on the claim form but did not tick any discrimination box.
- The claimant stated his protected characteristic was race but provided no facts supporting a discrimination claim.
- The claimant withdrew his breach of contract claim during the hearing.
- The claimant became agitated and disconnected from the hearing before the judge gave the discrimination decision.
Timeline
-
Claim presented
The claimant presented his claim to the Employment Tribunal, ticking unfair dismissal and breach of contract, and mentioning discrimination in box 5.
-
Tribunal letter about service requirement
The tribunal wrote to the claimant informing him that unfair dismissal requires two years' service unless automatic unfair dismissal applies.
-
Claimant's response
The claimant responded, stating he was claiming automatic unfair dismissal and that the dismissal was discriminatory.
-
Preliminary hearing
A preliminary hearing was held to consider jurisdiction for unfair dismissal and strike out/deposit order for discrimination. The claimant attended by CVP.
-
Judgment given
Employment Judge Martin dismissed the unfair dismissal claim for lack of service, dismissed the breach of contract claim as withdrawn, and dismissed the race discrimination claim for no reasonable prospect of success.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether it could hear an unfair dismissal claim from an employee with less than two years' service, and whether a race discrimination claim should be struck out because it lacked any supporting facts.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims. The unfair dismissal claim could not proceed because the law requires at least two years' continuous employment to bring such a claim, unless it is automatically unfair. The employee did not provide any facts to support an automatic unfair dismissal claim. The breach of contract claim was withdrawn by the employee during the hearing. The race discrimination claim was struck out because the claim form did not tick any discrimination box and the written details contained no facts suggesting discrimination. The employee mentioned race in a later letter but provided no evidence or explanation. The tribunal found the claim had no reasonable prospect of success.
Lessons & takeaways
- You generally need two years' continuous service to claim unfair dismissal, unless the reason is automatically unfair (e.g., whistleblowing or asserting a statutory right).
- If you want to bring a discrimination claim, you must tick the relevant box on the claim form and provide clear facts that support the claim – a bare mention is not enough.
- Tribunals can strike out claims that have no reasonable prospect of success, even without a full hearing, to save time and costs.
- If you have less than two years' service, consider whether your dismissal could be automatically unfair or whether you have a discrimination claim – but be prepared to provide specific evidence.
This case shows the strict legal hurdles that employees with short service face when trying to bring an unfair dismissal claim. The employee had worked for Manning Gottlieb OMD for less than two years, which meant the tribunal had no legal power to hear an ordinary unfair dismissal complaint. The law requires at least two years' continuous employment, unless the dismissal is for one of a limited number of automatically unfair reasons – such as whistleblowing or asserting a statutory right. The employee did not provide any facts to support an automatic unfair dismissal claim, so that part of the case was dismissed at a preliminary stage.
The employee also attempted to bring a race discrimination claim, but the claim form did not tick the discrimination box and the written details contained no facts that could suggest discrimination. Although the employee later mentioned race in a letter to the tribunal, the judge found that this was not enough to create a claim with any reasonable prospect of success. The claim was struck out under tribunal rules that allow early disposal of hopeless cases.
What could have been done differently?
The employee could have sought advice before submitting the claim to understand the two-year service requirement and the need to provide specific facts for a discrimination claim. Even without legal representation, a clearer claim form – ticking the correct boxes and explaining how race was a factor – might have allowed the discrimination claim to proceed to a hearing.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that employment tribunals have strict procedural rules. Claimants must ensure they meet the basic legal requirements – like two years' service for unfair dismissal – and must provide enough detail in their claim form to show that their case has a real chance of success. Without that, the tribunal can dismiss the claim early, saving the respondent time and cost, but leaving the claimant without a remedy.
Similar cases
Site Manager with 8 months' service loses unfair dismissal claim
A site manager who was dismissed after just eight months had his unfair dismissal claim struck out for lack of qualifying service. His race discrimination claims were allowed to proceed but subject to a £100 deposit order.
Discrimination claims struck out after failure to provide clear particulars
A former employee's race and religion discrimination claims were struck out after she failed to provide a properly constructed amendment despite a tribunal order. Her solicitor's last-minute postponement request was refused.
Asbestos removal workers' TUPE claims struck out: no transfer found
A group of former asbestos removal workers had their claims against three companies struck out after the tribunal found there was no TUPE transfer of their employment.
Whistleblowing unfair dismissal claim struck out for no reasonable prospect of success
A contract social worker's claim that they were automatically unfairly dismissed for making protected disclosures has been struck out by the tribunal, which found it had no reasonable prospect of success.