Unfair dismissal claim struck out: less than two years' service
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim was struck out because she had not worked for the required two-year qualifying period. The tribunal also warned that her discrimination claims would be struck out unless she complied with orders.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Key facts
- The claimant was employed from 18 October 2021 to 11 March 2022, less than two years.
- The claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing and had not engaged since September 2022.
- The claimant failed to comply with tribunal orders, including disclosure of medical records.
- The unfair dismissal claim was struck out for lack of jurisdiction due to insufficient service.
- The remaining discrimination claims were subject to an unless order with a deadline of 19 January 2023.
Timeline
-
Employment started
The claimant began working for the respondent.
-
Employment ended
The claimant's employment terminated.
-
Case management preliminary hearing
The tribunal raised the issue of the claimant's insufficient service for unfair dismissal.
-
Strike out warning sent
The tribunal wrote to the claimant requiring reasons why the unfair dismissal claim should not be struck out.
-
Claimant's last substantive email
The claimant sent an email apologising for non-compliance and explaining she needed hard copies due to dyslexia and was awaiting hip surgery.
-
Respondent sent hard copy bundle
The respondent sent a complete bundle of documents by recorded delivery.
-
Last contact from claimant
The claimant sent medical records/impact statement, but no further contact was made.
-
Notice of hearing sent
Notice of the preliminary hearing on 15 December 2022 was sent to the claimant.
-
Preliminary hearing
The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim and issued an unless order for the discrimination claims.
The legal issue
Whether the employee had the two-year qualifying period required to bring an unfair dismissal claim, and whether her discrimination claims should be struck out for failing to follow tribunal orders and engage with the process.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim because the employee had worked for less than two years (from 18 October 2021 to 11 March 2022). The law requires a minimum of two years' continuous service for most unfair dismissal claims.
The employee did not attend the hearing and had not engaged with the tribunal or the respondent since September 2022. She had also failed to comply with orders to disclose medical records and provide documents. The tribunal issued an 'unless order' giving her until 19 January 2023 to comply, otherwise her remaining discrimination claims would also be struck out.
No compensation was awarded as the claim was struck out.
Lessons & takeaways
- Check the qualifying period: you usually need two years' continuous service to bring an unfair dismissal claim (unless the reason is automatically unfair).
- Engage with the tribunal process: failing to attend hearings or comply with orders can lead to your claim being struck out.
- If you have a disability, ask the tribunal for reasonable adjustments early – the tribunal may help with hard copies or extra time.
- Keep the tribunal and respondent updated if you have health issues or need more time – silence can be seen as a lack of intention to pursue the claim.
A claim that fell at the first hurdle
This case shows how a seemingly straightforward unfair dismissal claim can fail on a technical but crucial point: the two-year qualifying period. The former employee, who worked for Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust for less than five months, brought an unfair dismissal claim without realising she did not meet the legal threshold. The tribunal had no choice but to strike it out.
What the employee could have done differently
The employee also faced difficulties engaging with the tribunal process. She had health issues including a hip operation and dyslexia, and asked for hard copies of documents – which the trust provided. But after September 2022 she stopped responding altogether. She did not attend the preliminary hearing and did not answer phone calls from the tribunal clerk. If she had kept in touch, even to ask for more time, the outcome might have been different.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that employment tribunals expect claimants to actively pursue their cases. Non-compliance with orders – such as failing to disclose medical records – can lead to strike-out warnings. Here, the tribunal gave the employee one last chance to save her discrimination claims by complying with an 'unless order' by 19 January 2023. Claimants who struggle with the process should seek advice early, perhaps from a solicitor or a citizens advice bureau, and always respond to tribunal communications.
Similar cases
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.
Redundancy claim struck out for non-disclosure: costs of £6,853 awarded
A senior manager's unfair dismissal claim was struck out after he failed to disclose documents about his new job. The tribunal ordered him to pay £6,853 in costs for unreasonable conduct.
Claim struck out after failure to comply with tribunal orders due to ill-health
A former employee's unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims against Marks and Spencer were struck out after she failed to comply with tribunal orders and did not actively pursue her claim.
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.