Unfair dismissal claim struck out due to insufficient service: lessons on the two-year qualifying period
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim was struck out because they had worked for less than two years. Their breach of contract claim also failed, but they were entitled to £90.28 holiday pay.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed for less than two years.
- The respondent's breach of contract claim was struck out for failure to provide further information.
- The claimant's unfair dismissal claim was struck out due to insufficient service.
- The claimant's claim for breach of contract regarding electric vehicle charging expenses failed.
- The claimant was entitled to £90.28 accrued holiday pay but the deduction was authorised by contract.
Timeline
-
Tribunal letter to respondent
The Tribunal informed the respondent that its breach of contract claim was inadequately pleaded and required further information.
-
Strike out warning
The Tribunal warned the respondent that its breach of contract claim may be struck out if required detail was not provided.
-
First strike out judgment
Employment Judge Leach struck out the respondent's breach of contract claim for non-compliance.
-
Second strike out judgment
Employment Judge Leach struck out the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint due to insufficient service.
-
First hearing day
Hearing before Employment Judge McDonald on the remaining claims.
-
Final hearing and judgment
Employment Judge McDonald dismissed the breach of contract claim for electric vehicle expenses and the unauthorised deductions claim, finding the holiday pay deduction was authorised.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employee had sufficient service to bring an unfair dismissal claim, and whether the employer breached the contract by not reimbursing electric vehicle charging expenses or made unauthorised deductions from wages.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim because the employee had less than two years' continuous service, as required by section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The respondent's breach of contract claim was also struck out for failing to provide required details.
The remaining claims were dismissed:
- The breach of contract claim for electric vehicle charging expenses failed because the contract did not require reimbursement.
- The claim for unauthorised deductions from wages failed because the deduction of £90.28 accrued holiday pay was authorised by the contract.
No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employees with less than two years' continuous service generally cannot bring an unfair dismissal claim, unless the dismissal is for an automatically unfair reason.
- To succeed in a breach of contract claim, you must show a clear contractual term that has been broken – a general expectation of reimbursement is not enough.
- Employers can deduct wages if the contract contains an express term authorising the deduction, and the employee has been given written notice of that term.
- If you are bringing a claim, ensure you comply with tribunal orders to provide further information, or your claim may be struck out.
A case of short service and contractual limits
This case highlights two important hurdles for employees bringing claims: the two-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal, and the need for a clear contractual entitlement for breach of contract claims. The former employee had worked for Blinds Ltd for less than two years, which meant their unfair dismissal complaint could not proceed. The tribunal struck it out early, leaving only the breach of contract and unauthorised deductions claims.
What the employee could not recover
The employee claimed that the employer should reimburse him for the cost of charging his electric vehicle at home. However, the tribunal found that there was no contractual term requiring this. Without a clear promise in the contract, the claim failed. Similarly, the employee argued that the employer made unauthorised deductions by not paying his accrued holiday pay of £90.28. But the tribunal found that the deduction was authorised by a written term in the contract, so the claim did not succeed.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that employment rights often depend on the specific terms of the contract and the employee's length of service. For unfair dismissal, the two-year qualifying period is a strict requirement unless the dismissal is for an automatically unfair reason (such as whistleblowing or discrimination). For breach of contract, the employee must point to a specific contractual promise – a general expectation is not enough. Employers should ensure that any deductions from wages are clearly authorised in writing, and employees should check their contracts carefully before bringing claims.
Similar cases
Default judgment against Zobra Limited for unpaid wages, notice and holiday pay
A former employee won £1,819 after Zobra Limited failed to respond to claims of unauthorised wage deductions, breach of contract and unpaid holiday. Claims for unfair dismissal and redundancy were struck out due to insufficient service.
Less than two years' service: unfair dismissal claim struck out, but notice and holiday pay awarded
A former employee who was dismissed without notice after less than two years' service had their unfair dismissal claim struck out, but won £1,514 for notice and holiday pay.
Café worker automatically unfairly dismissed for asserting right to written contract
A café worker with only six months' service was automatically unfairly dismissed after asking for a written contract. The tribunal awarded over £2,000 including injury to feelings for age discrimination.
Unfair dismissal but 100% Polkey reduction due to workplace closure
A former employee was unfairly dismissed but received only limited compensation because the tribunal found he would have been fairly dismissed a month later when the workplace closed. Total award: £12,419.29.