Claims struck out after claimant failed to attend hearing and lacked service
A former employee who brought unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and breach of contract claims had all three struck out after failing to attend a preliminary hearing and not having two years' service.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Key facts
- The claimant presented a claim on 20 January 2022 for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and breach of contract.
- The claimant did not have two years' continuous employment, making him ineligible for ordinary unfair dismissal.
- The claimant failed to comply with multiple tribunal orders, including providing a schedule of losses.
- The claimant failed to attend the preliminary hearing on 22 November 2022 without explanation.
- The claimant's claim for breach of contract lacked any identifiable contractual term entitling him to the claimed expenses.
Timeline
-
Claim presented
Mr Hurlock presented claims for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and breach of contract.
-
Respondent's ECC served
The respondent served an Employers Contract Claim on the claimant.
-
Preliminary hearing before EJ Loy
Employment Judge Loy made orders including a schedule of losses and document exchange.
-
Respondent applied to strike out
The respondent applied to strike out all claims or for a deposit order.
-
Claimant responded to strike out application
The claimant said he did not want his claims struck out but acknowledged he might not be eligible for unfair dismissal.
-
Strike out hearing
The claimant failed to attend; the tribunal struck out all claims.
The legal issue
Whether the claimant's claims should be struck out for having no reasonable prospect of success, unreasonable conduct, or failure to comply with tribunal orders.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out all of the former employee's claims.
- The unfair dismissal claim was struck out because the claimant did not have two years' continuous employment, which is required for ordinary unfair dismissal.
- The breach of contract claim for food and subsistence expenses was struck out because the claimant could not identify any contractual term entitling him to those payments.
- The wrongful dismissal claim (for notice pay) was struck out because the claimant had failed to comply with tribunal orders and had not attended the hearing, making his conduct unreasonable.
No compensation was awarded as all claims were dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- You generally need two years' continuous service to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim – check your start date before issuing proceedings.
- Tribunals expect you to comply with orders such as providing a schedule of losses; failure to do so can lead to your claim being struck out.
- If you cannot attend a hearing, you must inform the tribunal in advance and explain why – otherwise the tribunal may proceed in your absence.
- A breach of contract claim must be based on a specific contractual term – general expectations of expenses are not enough.
- Representation is not required, but if you are unrepresented you must still follow tribunal procedures and deadlines.
What this case shows in practice
This case demonstrates how quickly employment tribunal claims can unravel when a claimant does not meet basic procedural requirements or lacks the necessary legal foundation. The former employee brought three claims against David Morris Window Cleaning Ltd: unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal (notice pay), and breach of contract for unpaid food and subsistence expenses. However, he had not worked for the company for two years, meaning his unfair dismissal claim had no legal basis from the start.
What the respondent could have done differently
The respondent applied to strike out the claims early, which was a sensible step given the claimant's lack of service and the weakness of the breach of contract claim. The tribunal noted that the claimant had failed to comply with multiple orders, including providing a schedule of losses, and did not attend the preliminary hearing. The respondent's prompt application helped avoid further wasted time and costs.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that tribunals have strong powers to strike out claims that have no reasonable prospect of success or where a claimant fails to engage with the process. For anyone considering bringing a claim, it is essential to check the eligibility criteria – particularly the two-year service requirement for unfair dismissal – and to ensure that any breach of contract claim is based on a clear contractual term. Non-compliance with tribunal orders, especially without good reason, is likely to be treated seriously and can result in the claim being dismissed entirely.
Similar cases
Claims struck out after employee failed to comply with tribunal orders
A former employee's claims for constructive unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, and age discrimination have been struck out after repeated failures to comply with tribunal orders and participate in hearings.
Claims struck out after former employee fails to attend hearing or comply with orders
A former employee's unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims have been struck out after he failed to attend a preliminary hearing and did not comply with tribunal orders to provide evidence.
Former employee's claim struck out after failing to comply with tribunal orders
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim against Navaratna South Indian Restaurant Ltd. was struck out after she failed to attend a hearing and did not comply with case management orders. No compensation was awarded.
Strike-out for deaf former employee who tried to add new claims late
A tribunal struck out a deaf former employee's disability discrimination claim after she failed to comply with directions and attempted to add new claims that went beyond her original ET1.