Administrative error saves whistleblowing claim from time limit trap
A front of house supervisor who named the wrong respondent on her claim form has had her unfair dismissal claim reinstated after the tribunal found the error was compounded by administrative delays.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Front of House Supervisor from 1 January 2020 until dismissal on 17 June 2021.
- The claimant made protected public interest disclosures about health and safety and data protection breaches.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant for misconduct relating to a disagreement about an injured pigeon.
- The claimant submitted her first claim on 29 July 2021 but named the wrong respondent (Amanda Coulter instead of TBB Leisure Ltd).
- The claimant applied for reconsideration within 14 days of rejection, but the application was not processed due to administrative delays.
- The claimant submitted a second claim on 13 January 2022, which was out of time.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began work as Front of House Supervisor at Plymstock Inn.
-
ACAS Early Conciliation started
Claimant commenced Early Conciliation process (Day A).
-
Dismissal effective
Claimant's dismissal took effect after one month's notice.
-
ACAS Certificate issued
Early Conciliation Certificate issued (Day B).
-
First claim presented
Claimant presented first claim (1402700/2021) but named wrong respondent.
-
Claimant telephoned tribunal
Claimant called for update on first claim.
-
First claim rejected
Tribunal rejected first claim due to incorrect respondent name.
-
Reconsideration requested
Claimant emailed within 14 days asking to change respondent name to TBB Leisure Ltd.
-
Second claim presented
Claimant submitted second claim (1400112/2022) after no response.
-
Second claim accepted
Tribunal acknowledged second claim and served it on respondent.
-
Preliminary hearing
Tribunal granted reconsideration of first claim, amended respondent name, and dismissed second claim as duplicate.
The legal issue
Whether the claimant's unfair dismissal claim was presented in time, given that the first claim was rejected due to a naming error and the second claim was submitted after the time limit.
The outcome
The tribunal granted the claimant's application for reconsideration of the rejection of her first claim, allowing the respondent name to be corrected to TBB Leisure Limited. The first claim was reinstated and treated as presented in time. The second claim, submitted after the deadline, was dismissed as a duplicate.
No compensation was awarded at this preliminary stage.
Lessons & takeaways
- If your claim is rejected due to a minor error, apply for reconsideration immediately within the 14-day window.
- Keep a record of all communications with the tribunal, including phone calls, as they may be crucial if administrative delays occur.
- Naming the correct legal entity (the company, not an individual) on your claim form is essential to avoid rejection.
- Don't assume silence means progress—follow up regularly if you haven't heard back within a reasonable time.
- Administrative backlogs, such as those caused by the pandemic, can work in your favour if you can show you acted promptly.
A simple mistake, a long wait, and a second chance
This case shows how a straightforward administrative error can derail an employment claim, but also how the tribunal may be willing to correct it when the claimant acts promptly. The front of house supervisor was dismissed in June 2021 after raising concerns about health and safety and data protection. She started ACAS early conciliation in time and presented her first claim on 29 July 2021—well within the three-month limit. But she named the company's owner, Amanda Coulter, instead of the employer, TBB Leisure Limited. The claim was rejected.
What went wrong and what went right
The claimant did everything right after the rejection: she emailed the tribunal within 14 days asking for the respondent name to be corrected. But her request was not processed due to administrative delays linked to the Covid-19 backlog. When she heard nothing for months, she submitted a second claim in January 2022—this time out of time. The respondent argued the second claim was late, but the tribunal focused on the first claim. It granted reconsideration, corrected the name, and reinstated the original claim as presented in time.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that the tribunal has discretion to correct procedural errors, especially when the claimant has been diligent and the delays are not their fault. The key lesson is to act fast if your claim is rejected—seek reconsideration within 14 days. Keep a paper trail of every call and email. And if you are unsure about the correct legal name of your employer, check your contract or payslip. A small mistake can be fixed, but only if you act quickly and the tribunal accepts that you did your part.
Similar cases
Administrative error leads to revocation of dismissal judgment: tribunal allows claim to proceed
A former employee who responded to a tribunal direction within time but used the wrong case number had her unfair dismissal claim reinstated after the tribunal revoked its original judgment.
Lead Software Consultant's whistleblowing claims dismissed as out of time
An employment tribunal struck out a Lead Software Consultant's whistleblowing detriment and automatically unfair dismissal claims, leaving only an ordinary unfair dismissal claim to proceed. The tribunal also refused the employer's bid to strike out the remaining claim due to the claimant's conduct.
Night care assistant dismissed for sleeping on duty: dismissal upheld
A night care assistant who was found asleep on three occasions was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct. The tribunal also rejected his claims of discrimination and whistleblowing detriment.
Whistleblowing detriment claims partially struck out for being out of time
A former employee's whistleblowing detriment claims against BAE Systems have been partially struck out as out of time, but her constructive dismissal and some other claims can proceed.