Short-service employee's unfair dismissal claim struck out; discrimination claims survive with deposit order
A former employee of Shaw Trust had his unfair dismissal and redundancy claims struck out because he had less than two years' service. His race and sex discrimination claims were partially struck out and partially subject to a £5 deposit order.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed by the respondent for less than two years.
- The claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal and redundancy payment were struck out due to insufficient service.
- The claimant's claims of sex and race discrimination were partially struck out and partially subject to a deposit order.
- The claimant was the only black person or black man employed by the respondent where he worked.
- The claimant alleged differential treatment compared to white and/or female colleagues.
Timeline
-
Employment start
The claimant began employment with Shaw Trust. Exact date not specified.
-
First judgment
Employment Judge Anstis struck out the unfair dismissal and redundancy payment claims due to insufficient service.
-
Second hearing
Employment Judge Anstis considered strike out and deposit order applications regarding discrimination claims.
-
Second judgment
Certain discrimination allegations were struck out; others were subject to a deposit order of £5 each.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's claims of unfair dismissal, redundancy payment, and race/sex discrimination should be struck out or subject to a deposit order due to insufficient service or lack of reasonable prospects of success.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal and redundancy payment claims because the claimant had less than two years' service, which is a legal requirement for bringing such claims.
The tribunal also considered the discrimination claims. It struck out some allegations (e.g., that the person chairing a probationary review was too junior) as having no reasonable prospects. For the remaining discrimination allegations, the tribunal imposed a deposit order of £5 each, meaning the claimant must pay a small sum to proceed. The tribunal noted that the claimant's case lacked 'something more' beyond a difference in treatment and protected characteristic.
No compensation was awarded as the claims were either struck out or subject to a deposit order.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employees with less than two years' service generally cannot bring unfair dismissal or redundancy payment claims, unless an exception applies.
- To succeed in a discrimination claim, showing a difference in treatment and a protected characteristic is not enough; there must be 'something more' linking the treatment to the characteristic.
- A deposit order is a small financial hurdle the tribunal can impose on claims with little reasonable prospect of success, giving the claimant a chance to reconsider or seek legal advice.
- Being the only person of a certain race or sex in a workplace does not automatically prove discrimination; evidence of discriminatory motive is needed.
This case highlights two important hurdles for employment tribunal claimants: the two-year service requirement for unfair dismissal and the need for more than just a difference in treatment to prove discrimination.
The service trap
The claimant had worked for Shaw Trust for less than two years when he was dismissed. Under UK law, employees generally need two years' continuous service to bring an unfair dismissal claim or claim a statutory redundancy payment. The tribunal had no choice but to strike out those claims, as the claimant could not show any exception applied. This is a common pitfall for workers who assume all dismissals can be challenged.
The discrimination hurdle
The claimant alleged race and sex discrimination, pointing out that he was the only black man in his workplace and that he was treated worse than white or female colleagues. However, the tribunal explained that even if he could prove a difference in treatment and a difference in protected characteristic, the law requires 'something more' to infer discrimination. The claimant had not yet identified that extra evidence. Some allegations were struck out entirely as having no reasonable prospects, while others were allowed to proceed but only after the claimant pays a £5 deposit per allegation.
What this means for similar claims
For employees considering a tribunal claim, this case is a reminder to check the service requirement for unfair dismissal and to gather evidence that directly links any mistreatment to a protected characteristic. Simply being in a minority group and receiving worse treatment is not enough. The tribunal's decision to impose a small deposit rather than strike out all discrimination claims shows that even weak claims may be given a chance to develop, especially if the claimant is unrepresented and the case is at an early stage.
Similar cases
Claims struck out after claimant and representative fail to attend hearing
A former employee's race and sex discrimination claims were struck out after she and her representative failed to attend a preliminary hearing without explanation. A later bid to reinstate the case was refused.
Lorry driver with 18 days' service: unfair dismissal struck out but discrimination claims survive
A lorry driver who resigned after 18 days and later worked as an agency driver was unable to claim unfair dismissal due to short service, but his disability and race discrimination claims will proceed to a final hearing.
Deposit non-payment leads to strike-out of race discrimination and unfair dismissal claims
A customer service advisor's claims of unfair dismissal and race discrimination were struck out after he failed to pay a £2,000 deposit ordered by the tribunal. The deposit was required because his claims had little reasonable prospect of success.
Administrative employee's race discrimination claim allowed to proceed despite short service
An employment tribunal has allowed a race discrimination claim to proceed against London Road Surgery, but struck out the unfair dismissal claim because the employee had less than two years' service.