Former employee's unfair dismissal claim struck out for lack of two years' service
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim against Kings College London was struck out because they did not have the required two years' service. Their discrimination claims were dismissed after a hearing.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant did not have the qualifying two years' service for an unfair dismissal claim.
- The claimant failed to respond to the tribunal's invitation to show cause why the claim should not be struck out.
- The unfair dismissal complaint was struck out.
- The remaining claims of direct race discrimination and direct religion or belief discrimination were dismissed after a hearing.
- The claimant was represented in person; the first respondent was represented by a consultant.
Timeline
-
Tribunal letter to claimant
The tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations as to why the unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out due to lack of qualifying service.
-
Legal Officer Goatham's judgment
A judgment by Legal Officer Goatham was issued, which this judgment should be read alongside.
-
Hearing day 1
The hearing for the remaining claims commenced at London South Employment Tribunal.
-
Hearing day 2
The hearing continued.
-
Hearing day 3 and judgment
The hearing concluded and Employment Judge Heath gave judgment dismissing the claims of direct race discrimination and direct religion or belief discrimination.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant had the necessary two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal claim, and whether the employer directly discriminated against the claimant on grounds of race or religion or belief.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant did not have the required two years' service and did not respond to the tribunal's opportunity to argue why it should not be struck out.
The remaining claims of direct race discrimination and direct religion or belief discrimination were dismissed after a three-day hearing. The tribunal found no evidence to support these claims.
No compensation was awarded as all claims were dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- You generally need two years' continuous service to bring an unfair dismissal claim, unless an exception applies.
- If the tribunal asks you to explain why your claim should not be struck out, you must respond in writing or request a hearing – failing to do so can lead to automatic strike-out.
- Bringing discrimination claims requires evidence of less favourable treatment because of a protected characteristic – a tribunal will dismiss claims that lack such evidence.
- Representing yourself is possible but can be challenging; it is important to engage with tribunal directions and deadlines.
This case shows the importance of meeting the basic eligibility requirements for an unfair dismissal claim. The former employee did not have the two years' continuous service required under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. When the tribunal wrote to them in June 2021 giving them a chance to explain why the claim should not be struck out, they did not reply. As a result, the unfair dismissal complaint was struck out without a hearing.
What the tribunal decided
The remaining claims of direct race discrimination and direct religion or belief discrimination went to a full hearing in December 2023. The claimant appeared in person, while Kings College London was represented by a consultant. After three days of evidence and argument, the tribunal dismissed both claims, finding no evidence that the claimant had been treated less favourably because of race or religion or belief.
What could have been done differently
The claimant could have avoided the strike-out by responding to the tribunal's letter, even if they lacked the service requirement – there are limited exceptions that might have applied. For the discrimination claims, stronger evidence linking any alleged treatment to a protected characteristic would have been needed to succeed.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that employment tribunals have strict procedural rules. Failing to engage with tribunal directions can result in claims being struck out early. It also highlights that discrimination claims require solid evidence, not just a belief that unfair treatment was motivated by race or religion.
Similar cases
Claim struck out after former employee failed to attend hearing
A former employee's claims for unfair dismissal and discrimination were struck out after he failed to attend a telephone hearing and did not comply with orders to explain his absence.
Server's unfair dismissal claim struck out after failing to engage with tribunal
A restaurant server with less than two years' service had his unfair dismissal claim struck out after he failed to attend hearings or comply with tribunal orders. The tribunal also dismissed his race discrimination claim due to unreasonable conduct.
Former employee loses unfair dismissal and discrimination claims after failing to pursue them
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim was dismissed for lack of continuity of employment, and his race discrimination claim was thrown out as out of time. Other claims were struck out for failing to actively pursue them.
Taxi driver's unfair dismissal and discrimination claims dismissed as out of time
A taxi driver who waited over six months to bring his claim after Uber deactivated his account has had his case thrown out by the Nottingham tribunal for being well outside the three-month time limit.