Security worker's unfair dismissal claim fails due to breaks in service
A security worker who knew he lacked two years' continuous employment pursued an unfair dismissal claim anyway. The tribunal dismissed the claim and ordered him to pay £8,696 in costs.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #continuous-employment
- #break-in-service
- #unreasonable-conduct
- #costs-awarded
- #holiday-pay-unquantified
Key facts
- The claimant worked as a security worker for the respondent from 2018 until dismissal on 3 March 2023.
- There were two breaks in employment: 5 November 2020 to 21 May 2021 and 28 September 2022 to 11 October 2022.
- The claimant knew about these breaks and therefore knew he did not have two years' continuous service required for unfair dismissal.
- The claimant pursued a claim for unpaid holiday pay but could not quantify any loss.
- The respondent made a settlement offer of £2,000 on 28 July 2023, which the claimant did not accept or engage with.
- The tribunal found the claimant had been dishonest and evasive in his evidence.
Timeline
-
Employment started
The claimant began working for the respondent as a security worker.
-
First break in employment
The claimant's employment ended, with a gap until 21 May 2021.
-
Employment resumed
The claimant returned to work, signing new terms and conditions.
-
Second break in employment
The claimant resigned or left, returning on 11 October 2022.
-
Employment resumed again
The claimant signed a new contract and returned to work.
-
Dismissal
The claimant was dismissed by the respondent.
-
Settlement offer
The respondent offered £2,000 to settle, explaining the lack of continuous service.
-
Final merits hearing
The tribunal dismissed both claims for unfair dismissal and holiday pay.
-
Costs application
The respondent applied for costs.
-
Costs judgment
The tribunal ordered the claimant to pay £8,696.34 in costs.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant had the required two years' continuous employment to bring an unfair dismissal claim, and whether he was entitled to unpaid holiday pay.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed both claims. The unfair dismissal claim failed because the claimant's employment had two breaks, meaning he did not have the two years' continuous service needed to bring such a claim. The holiday pay claim was also dismissed because the claimant could not quantify any loss.
- Unfair dismissal claim: dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (insufficient continuous service).
- Holiday pay claim: dismissed as unquantified.
- Costs awarded against the claimant: £8,696.34, covering legal costs from 28 July 2023 onwards, after the respondent had offered £2,000 to settle and explained the service issue.
Lessons & takeaways
- Check your continuous service length before bringing an unfair dismissal claim — you need two years (unless the reason is automatically unfair).
- If you have breaks in employment, they may reset the clock for continuous service, even if you return to the same employer.
- Pursuing a claim you know is hopeless can lead to a costs order, which can be substantial.
- Engaging with settlement offers and ACAS early can help avoid escalating costs.
- If you cannot quantify a loss for a holiday pay claim, the tribunal may dismiss it.
This case shows the importance of understanding the basic eligibility rules before bringing an employment tribunal claim. The security worker had been employed since 2018, but two breaks in his employment — one of over six months and another of two weeks — meant he did not have the two years' continuous service required to bring an unfair dismissal claim. He knew about these breaks, yet pursued the claim anyway.
What went wrong for the claimant
The tribunal found the claimant had been dishonest and evasive in his evidence. The respondent had even offered £2,000 to settle the matter before the hearing, explaining clearly why the claim could not succeed. The claimant did not engage with that offer or with ACAS. By continuing to pursue a fundamentally flawed claim, he acted unreasonably, leading to a costs order of £8,696.
What this means for similar claims
For employees, this is a reminder that the two-year qualifying period is a strict legal requirement. Even if you feel your dismissal was unfair, without continuous service you cannot bring a claim (unless the reason is automatically unfair, such as whistleblowing or discrimination). For employers, the case illustrates that a clear, early settlement offer explaining the legal position can help protect against costs later. The tribunal will look at whether the claimant knew or should have known their claim was hopeless.
Similar cases
Racial harassment claim dismissed as out of time and unsupported by evidence
A tribunal dismissed a former NHS assistant practitioner's racial harassment claims, finding the allegations were not supported by evidence and were brought too late. The claimant was ordered to pay £5,000 costs for unreasonable conduct.
Claim struck out for failing to comply with tribunal orders
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim against Gateshead Health NHS Foundation Trust was struck out after he failed to comply with tribunal orders and did not respond to correspondence. He was ordered to pay £187.50 in costs.
Claims struck out after housing officer failed to serve witness statement
A former housing officer's unfair dismissal and discrimination claims were struck out after she repeatedly failed to serve a witness statement, despite extensions and warnings. She was also ordered to pay £3,870 in costs.
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.