US national dismissed from Ministry of Defence: contract void due to nationality rules
A US national employed for five years by the Ministry of Defence was dismissed when the department realised her contract was void under Civil Service Nationality Rules. The tribunal struck out all claims as having no reasonable prospect of success.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #void-contract
- #civil-service-nationality-rules
- #statutory-illegality
- #strike-out
- #deposit-order
Key facts
- The claimant, a US national, was employed by the Ministry of Defence as a civil servant from 2016 to 2021.
- The Civil Service Nationality Rules (CSNR) prohibited the employment of non-British nationals in the Home Civil Service.
- The claimant's appointment was made in error by the respondent's employees who failed to apply the CSNR.
- Upon discovering the error in 2021, the respondent dismissed the claimant and treated her contract as void ab initio.
- The respondent paid the claimant an ex-gratia payment of £19,000 and other sums despite the void contract.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
The claimant started working for the Ministry of Defence as a Project Controls Manager.
-
Promotion
The claimant was promoted internally; security checks were conducted again but the CSNR was not applied.
-
Grievance raised
The claimant applied for a promotion advertised as 'sole UK National applicants only' and raised an internal grievance alleging discrimination.
-
Grievance outcome
The grievance was upheld; the respondent acknowledged that the nationality restriction should not have been applied as an umbrella approach.
-
New promotion application
The claimant applied for a promotion without the nationality caveat and was successful at interview in December 2020.
-
Security checks for promotion
Security checks were undertaken for the promoted role, leading to the discovery of the CSNR violation.
-
Alien certificate refused
The respondent confirmed that an alien certificate could not be used to correct the recruitment error.
-
Dismissal
The claimant was dismissed on the ground that her contract was void ab initio due to her US nationality.
-
Claim presented
The claimant presented her claim to the Employment Tribunal.
-
Preliminary hearing
The Tribunal heard the respondent's application to strike out the claims.
-
Judgment issued
Employment Judge King struck out all claims as having no reasonable prospect of success.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's employment contract was void from the start due to statutory nationality restrictions, and whether the Ministry of Defence could rely on a statutory defence under the Equality Act 2010 for applying the Civil Service Nationality Rules.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out all of the claimant's claims as having no reasonable prospect of success.
- The contract was void ab initio because the Civil Service Nationality Rules prohibited the employment of non-British nationals in the Home Civil Service, and the claimant's appointment had been made in error.
- The discrimination claims were barred by paragraph 5 of Schedule 22 of the Equality Act 2010, which permits nationality-based restrictions in Crown employment.
- The tribunal also noted that if the claims had not been struck out, it would have ordered a deposit of £500 for each claim.
Lessons & takeaways
- Check whether your role is subject to statutory nationality or security restrictions before accepting a job offer in the civil service or similar sectors.
- If you are a non-British national, be aware that certain civil service posts may be legally closed to you regardless of your right to work in the UK.
- A contract entered into in breach of statutory rules can be void from the start, meaning you may lose employment rights such as unfair dismissal protection.
- Employers should ensure their recruitment processes comply with relevant nationality rules to avoid hiring in error and facing later legal complications.
A contract void from the start
This case shows what can happen when a government department hires someone in breach of its own statutory nationality rules. The claimant, a US national, worked as a Project Controls Manager for the Ministry of Defence for over five years. She was promoted, passed security checks, and even raised a grievance about a promotion advert that restricted applicants to UK nationals only. But when a further promotion triggered fresh security vetting, the department discovered that her original appointment had been unlawful under the Civil Service Nationality Rules (CSNR).
The Ministry of Defence treated her contract as void from the outset – as if it had never existed – and dismissed her. The tribunal agreed that this was legally correct. The CSNR, which implement primary legislation from the Act of Settlement 1700 and later acts, prohibit non-British nationals from holding posts in the Home Civil Service. Because the contract was void ab initio, the claimant had no rights under it, including the right not to be unfairly dismissed.
What the employer could have done differently
The Ministry of Defence admitted that the claimant's appointment was made in error – its own employees failed to apply the nationality rules at the recruitment stage. A more robust pre-employment check would have avoided the situation entirely. Once the error was discovered, the department did pay an ex-gratia sum of £19,000, which the tribunal noted. But the legal position was clear: the contract could not be retrospectively validated.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that statutory illegality can override even a long-standing employment relationship. For anyone considering a claim, it highlights the importance of understanding whether your role is subject to specific legal restrictions. It also shows that discrimination claims may be blocked by statutory exemptions – here, paragraph 5 of Schedule 22 of the Equality Act 2010 expressly allows nationality-based restrictions in Crown employment. The tribunal struck out all claims, including unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, race discrimination, and victimisation, as having no reasonable prospect of success.
Similar cases
Site Manager with 8 months' service loses unfair dismissal claim
A site manager who was dismissed after just eight months had his unfair dismissal claim struck out for lack of qualifying service. His race discrimination claims were allowed to proceed but subject to a £100 deposit order.
Unfair dismissal claim struck out: the two-year service rule in action
A former employee of the University of Bradford had his unfair dismissal claim struck out because he had less than two years' service. His harassment and disability discrimination claims were also struck out for procedural failures.
Project engineer with under two years' service has unfair dismissal and discrimination claims struck out
A tribunal struck out a project engineer's unfair dismissal, sexual orientation discrimination, and wrongful dismissal claims after he was sacked for sending a confidential email to colleagues. His sex discrimination claim survived but required a £200 deposit.
Former employee's claims struck out after failing to pay tribunal deposit
The employment tribunal struck out all three claims brought by a former employee against Openwork Limited after he failed to pay a deposit order. The tribunal also refused his applications for an extension of time and reconsideration.