Claimant v Proptech Aero Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
Claimant did not have two years' continuous service at the date of dismissal (dismissed 6 August 2024 after starting 12 September 2022). Claimant incorrectly believed that employment under a contract of apprenticeship was an exception to the two-year qualifying period. Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the claim.
Claimant applied to amend to add a claim for wrongful dismissal/breach of contract based on alleged early termination of a four-year fixed term oral contract. Application refused as it was a wholly new claim legally and factually, significantly out of time, and the respondent would suffer considerable evidential prejudice in defending allegations about an oral agreement made three years earlier.
Facts
Claimant was employed as an NDT apprentice from 12 September 2022 under a fixed-term contract stated by the respondent to be for one year and four months. He was dismissed with immediate effect on 6 August 2024, paid in lieu of one month's notice, and his appeal was unsuccessful. He brought an unfair dismissal claim believing his apprenticeship contract exempted him from the two-year qualifying period. When that failed, he attempted to amend to claim wrongful dismissal based on an alleged four-year oral fixed-term contract.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant lacked the required two years' continuous service and apprenticeship contracts are not an exception to this requirement. The tribunal refused the claimant's application to amend to pursue wrongful dismissal, finding it was a wholly new claim factually and legally, significantly out of time, and would cause considerable evidential prejudice to the respondent who would need to defend allegations about an oral agreement made three years earlier.
Practical note
Contracts of apprenticeship do not exempt employees from the two-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal, and tribunals will refuse very late amendments to introduce wholly new factual claims where the respondent faces significant evidential prejudice.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6018120/2024
- Decision date
- 4 August 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- technology
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- NDT apprentice
- Service
- 2 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No