Former employee's claims struck out for lack of service and non-compliance
A former employee of Extreme Networks had all claims struck out after failing to meet the two-year service requirement for unfair dismissal and not complying with tribunal orders.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Key facts
- The claimant was employed by the respondent for less than two years.
- The claimant's unfair dismissal claim was struck out due to lack of qualifying service.
- The claimant's age discrimination claim was struck out and an application to set aside was dismissed.
- The claimant's notice pay claim was struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success.
- The claimant failed to comply with a Tribunal order and did not actively pursue the claim, leading to the remaining claim being struck out.
Timeline
-
First strike-out judgment
Employment Judge Anstis struck out the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant had less than two years' service.
-
Order striking out unfair dismissal claim
An order was made striking out the unfair dismissal claim.
-
Order striking out age discrimination claim
An order was made striking out the age discrimination claim.
-
Hearing on set aside application
Employment Judge Feeney heard the claimant's application to set aside the strike-out orders. The claimant did not attend.
-
Second judgment
Employment Judge Feeney dismissed the set aside application, struck out the notice pay claim, and allowed the race discrimination claim to continue.
-
Order for further steps
The Tribunal made an order requiring the claimant to take steps to progress the race discrimination claim.
-
Notice of potential strike out
The Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to show why the claim should not be struck out for non-compliance and lack of active pursuit.
-
Final strike-out judgment
Employment Judge Anstis struck out the remaining claim because the claimant failed to respond.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the former employee's claims should be struck out because she did not have the required two years of service for unfair dismissal, and because she failed to comply with orders and actively pursue her other claims.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out all the former employee's claims against Extreme Networks.
- The unfair dismissal claim was struck out because the employee had worked for less than two years, which is the minimum qualifying period for such a claim under UK law.
- The age discrimination and notice pay claims were also struck out, and the race discrimination claim was struck out later due to the employee's failure to comply with tribunal orders and lack of active pursuit.
- No compensation was awarded as the claims were struck out before reaching a hearing on the merits.
Lessons & takeaways
- You generally need at least two years of continuous service to bring an unfair dismissal claim, unless the dismissal is for an automatically unfair reason.
- If you bring multiple claims, each must have a legal basis—discrimination claims have no service requirement, but you must still comply with tribunal orders.
- Failing to attend hearings or respond to tribunal orders can lead to your entire claim being struck out, even if parts of it had merit.
- Tribunals will give you opportunities to explain why a claim should not be struck out, but ignoring those chances will likely result in the claim being dismissed.
This case shows how procedural requirements can derail a claim before it ever gets to a full hearing. The former employee of Extreme Networks brought claims for unfair dismissal, age discrimination, notice pay, and race discrimination. However, the tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim early on because she had worked for the company for less than two years—the minimum qualifying period for that type of claim.
Even though discrimination claims do not have a service requirement, the employee still needed to actively pursue them and comply with tribunal orders. After the unfair dismissal and age discrimination claims were struck out, the tribunal gave her a chance to keep the race discrimination claim alive by taking steps to progress it. She did not respond, and the claim was struck out for non-compliance and lack of active pursuit.
What the losing side could have done differently: The employee could have avoided the strike-out by responding to the tribunal's orders and attending hearings. Even if she had a weak case, engaging with the process would have given her a chance to argue why the claims should continue. Instead, her silence led to the entire case being dismissed.
This result matters for similar claims because it highlights two key points. First, the two-year service rule for unfair dismissal is a hard barrier—tribunals cannot hear claims from employees with less service unless the dismissal is for an automatically unfair reason like whistleblowing. Second, once a claim is in the tribunal system, claimants must comply with orders and actively pursue their case, or risk having it struck out 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.
Claim struck out after claimant and his son failed to attend hearings
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim was struck out after he and his son repeatedly failed to attend hearings and did not comply with tribunal directions.