Citizens Advice misadvice: unfair dismissal claim thrown out as out of time
An NHS Statman and Induction Lead's unfair dismissal claim was dismissed because she started ACAS Early Conciliation after the three-month deadline, despite being wrongly told by Citizens Advice that pay in lieu of notice extended the time limit.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #out-of-time
- #acas-early-conciliation
- #citizens-advice-misadvice
- #reasonable-practicability
- #jurisdictional-point
Key facts
- The claimant was dismissed on 22 February 2021 with pay in lieu of notice.
- The claimant started ACAS Early Conciliation on 16 June 2021, more than three months after dismissal.
- The claimant presented her unfair dismissal claim on 10 August 2021.
- The Citizens Advice Bureau wrongly advised the claimant that time limits were extended due to pay in lieu of notice.
- The tribunal found the claim was presented out of time and it was reasonably practicable to present it in time.
Timeline
-
Dismissal
The claimant was dismissed with immediate effect and pay in lieu of notice.
-
Citizens Advice letter
Citizens Advice Bureau wrote to the respondent arguing the claimant should have received a redundancy payment.
-
Time limit expiry
The ordinary three-month time limit for presenting an unfair dismissal claim expired.
-
ACAS Early Conciliation started
The claimant started ACAS Early Conciliation, which was after the time limit.
-
ACAS Early Conciliation ended
ACAS Early Conciliation concluded.
-
Claim sent to tribunal
The claimant sent her unfair dismissal claim to the Employment Tribunal.
-
Claim presented
The claim was formally presented to the tribunal.
-
Application to amend
The claimant applied to amend her claim to include a redundancy payment, but later withdrew the application.
-
Preliminary hearing
The tribunal heard the jurisdictional issue regarding time limits.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether it had jurisdiction to hear the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint, given that it was presented after the three-month time limit, and whether it was not reasonably practicable for the claim to be presented in time.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim because it was presented out of time.
- The claimant was dismissed on 22 February 2021. The three-month deadline expired on 21 May 2021.
- She started ACAS Early Conciliation on 16 June 2021, after the deadline, and presented her claim on 10 August 2021.
- The tribunal held that it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time, so no extension was granted.
Lessons & takeaways
- The three-month time limit for unfair dismissal claims runs from the effective date of termination, not from the end of any pay in lieu of notice period.
- Incorrect advice from Citizens Advice or other advisers does not automatically make it not reasonably practicable to present a claim in time.
- If you are unsure about time limits, seek specialist employment law advice promptly and do not rely on generalist advice.
- ACAS Early Conciliation must be started before the three-month deadline to preserve the time limit for presenting a claim.
A costly misunderstanding of time limits
This case illustrates a common trap for employees bringing unfair dismissal claims: the strict three-month time limit. The claimant, a Statman and Induction Lead for Barnet, Enfield and Haringey Mental Health NHS Trust, was dismissed with immediate effect on 22 February 2021. She believed that because she received pay in lieu of notice, the time limit for bringing a claim was extended. This belief was reinforced by advice from the Citizens Advice Bureau, which wrote to the trust arguing for a redundancy payment but did not correct the misunderstanding about time limits.
What the tribunal decided
The tribunal had to decide whether it was 'not reasonably practicable' for the claim to be presented in time. The claimant started ACAS Early Conciliation on 16 June 2021, nearly a month after the 21 May 2021 deadline. The tribunal found that she could have presented her claim in time if she had sought proper advice or checked the rules. The fact that she relied on incorrect advice did not make it impracticable; she had the capacity to find out the correct position.
What the losing side could have done differently
The claimant could have checked the time limit with an employment solicitor or used the ACAS website, which clearly states that the three-month period runs from the effective date of termination. Alternatively, she could have started ACAS Early Conciliation earlier, even while seeking advice. The tribunal noted that she was in contact with Citizens Advice from 9 March 2021, giving her ample time to act.
Why this matters
This decision reinforces that the 'not reasonably practicable' test is a high hurdle. Misadvice from a free advice service, while unfortunate, does not automatically extend the time limit. Employees must take responsibility for understanding and meeting the deadline. The case also highlights that pay in lieu of notice does not delay the effective date of termination for time limit purposes.
Similar cases
Constructive dismissal claim dismissed as nine months out of time
A former employee's claims of automatic constructive unfair dismissal and sexual orientation harassment were struck out after he presented his claim nine months late, despite having initially filed on time but without an ACAS certificate.
Claim dismissed after CAB missed tribunal deadline: time limits are strict
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim was thrown out because he relied on the Citizens Advice Bureau to submit his claim, but the three-month deadline had already passed.
Claim dismissed after employee failed to attend hearing and filed late
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim was thrown out after he failed to attend the final hearing and had already asked to cancel it. The tribunal also found the claim was presented out of time.
Former employee's claim dismissed as one day late: ADHD and technical issues not enough
A former DHL employee's unfair dismissal claim was thrown out after being filed one day late. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to submit on time, rejecting ADHD and technical difficulties as excuses.