Seasonal chauffeur with 17 years' service loses unfair dismissal claim over broken continuity
A chauffeur who worked for the Dubai Royal Family for 17 years under fixed-term contracts was unable to claim unfair dismissal because gaps between seasons broke his continuous service. The tribunal found the 2019 gap was due to resignation, not a temporary cessation of work.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #seasonal-worker
- #fixed-term-contracts
- #continuous-employment
- #temporary-cessation
- #misconduct-dismissal
- #resignation
Key facts
- The claimant worked as a chauffeur for the Dubai Royal Family via the respondent from 2003.
- He was employed under a series of fixed-term contracts each year, with breaks between seasons.
- On 26 January 2017, the claimant was dismissed for speeding but re-engaged the next season at the client's request.
- On 20 December 2019, the claimant resigned from his contract, ending his employment that season.
- The tribunal found that the 2019-2020 gap was due to resignation, not a temporary cessation of work.
- The claimant did not have two years' continuous service from 10 December 2018, so the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.
Timeline
-
Started work for Dubai Royal Family
Claimant began driving for the Dubai Royal Family via an agency, later through the respondent from 2006.
-
Started fixed-term contract
Claimant signed a fixed-term contract as a chauffeur from 4 April to 28 October 2016.
-
Final written warning for speeding
Claimant received a final written warning for a speeding offence.
-
Dismissed for misconduct
Claimant was dismissed for exceeding the speed limit again, with notice paid in lieu.
-
Appeal against dismissal
Claimant appealed the dismissal but was told it was out of time.
-
Re-engaged as chauffeur
Claimant was offered a new fixed-term contract starting 19 April 2017, at the client's request.
-
Resignation
Claimant emailed the respondent requesting to be stood down, with last working day 20 December 2019.
-
Re-engagement for 2020 season
Client requested claimant start back on 23 March 2020.
-
Contract ended
Claimant's final contract ended on 9 December 2020.
-
Claim presented
Claimant brought claims for unfair dismissal, notice pay, whistleblowing, and fixed-term employee status.
The legal issue
Whether the claimant had two years' continuous employment to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim, specifically whether gaps between fixed-term contracts were due to temporary cessations of work under section 212(3)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim for ordinary unfair dismissal because the claimant lacked the required two years' continuous service.
The key reason was that the gap between the 2019 and 2020 seasons was due to the claimant's resignation, not a temporary cessation of work. The tribunal found that the claimant had three separate periods of continuous employment: 1 March 2003 to 26 January 2017, 19 April 2017 to 20 September 2019, and 30 May 2020 to 9 December 2020. None of these periods reached two years before the effective date of termination.
No compensation was awarded as the claim was dismissed at the preliminary stage.
Lessons & takeaways
- Seasonal workers on fixed-term contracts should check whether gaps between contracts are treated as breaks in continuous service, as this affects eligibility for unfair dismissal claims.
- Resigning from a contract, even temporarily, can break continuity of employment and prevent a future unfair dismissal claim.
- Employers should clearly document the reason for any gap between fixed-term contracts to avoid disputes over continuity.
- Claimants should seek legal advice early to determine if they have the necessary continuous service before bringing an unfair dismissal claim.
A long service, but broken continuity
This case illustrates a common trap for seasonal workers: years of loyal service do not automatically translate into continuous employment. The claimant had worked as a chauffeur for the Dubai Royal Family since 2003, but each year he was employed under a fixed-term contract that ended when the horse racing season finished. The gaps between contracts were usually a few months, but the tribunal had to decide whether those gaps counted as 'temporary cessations of work' under employment law.
The critical gap: resignation vs. cessation
The key issue was the gap between the 2019 and 2020 seasons. In December 2019, the claimant emailed his employer asking to be 'stood down' – effectively resigning from that season's contract. The tribunal found this was a resignation, not a temporary cessation of work caused by the employer. That broke the chain of continuous service, meaning the claimant could not count his earlier years towards the two-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal.
What the employer did right
The employer, UK Mission Enterprise Limited, kept clear records of each fixed-term contract and the reasons for gaps. They were able to show that the claimant had resigned in 2019, which was not a routine seasonal break. This allowed them to successfully argue that the claimant's continuous service had been broken.
What this means for similar claims
For seasonal workers, this case is a reminder that continuity of employment is not automatic. A resignation, even in the context of a seasonal role, can reset the clock. For employers, it shows the importance of documenting the end of each contract and the reason for any gap. The outcome may have been different if the claimant had been laid off due to lack of work rather than resigning.
Similar cases
Production operative dismissed during long-term sick leave: unfair dismissal claim fails on service
A production operative who was dismissed while on sick leave for plantar fasciitis and depression lost her unfair dismissal claim because she had less than two years' service. All disability discrimination claims were also dismissed.
Teaching assistant dismissed for using prohibited restraint technique: tribunal upholds decision
A teaching assistant who pulled a young person's hood and took them to the floor in a ground hold was fairly dismissed for misconduct, the tribunal has ruled. The claim for race discrimination also failed.
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.
Support Manager's constructive dismissal claim over role change fails
A Support Manager who resigned after her role was changed and workload reduced lost her constructive unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found no breach of trust and confidence.