Claim form returned for missing postcode: tribunal says claim still in time
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim was allowed to proceed after the tribunal ruled that his claim form was correctly presented on 20 April 2022, even though it was initially returned for lacking a postcode and resubmitted one day after the deadline.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The effective date of termination was 19 November 2021.
- ACAS Early Conciliation began on 8 February 2022 and the certificate was issued on 21 March 2022.
- The time limit for an unfair dismissal claim expired on 21 April 2022.
- The claimant posted his claim form and it was returned because the postcode for the second respondent was missing.
- The claimant added the postcode and resubmitted the form by special delivery.
- The tribunal found that the claim was correctly presented on 20 April 2022, within the time limit.
Timeline
-
Effective date of termination
The claimant's employment ended.
-
ACAS Early Conciliation started
The claimant began early conciliation with ACAS.
-
ACAS certificate issued
The ACAS Early Conciliation certificate was issued.
-
Claim form first received
The claimant's ET1 form was first received by the tribunal but returned due to missing postcode.
-
Claim form resubmitted
The claimant resubmitted the form with the postcode added.
-
Preliminary hearing
The tribunal heard the time limit issue.
-
Judgment issued
The tribunal decided the claim was presented in time and allowed to proceed.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's unfair dismissal claim was presented within the statutory time limit, given that the claim form was initially returned for missing a postcode and then resubmitted one day after the deadline.
The outcome
The tribunal decided that the claim was presented in time and allowed it to proceed.
Key reasons:
- The claim form was first received on 20 April 2022, within the time limit.
- The form was incorrectly returned because it lacked a postcode for the second respondent, but the tribunal rules do not require a postcode.
- Therefore, the claim was validly presented on 20 April 2022.
No compensation was awarded as this was a preliminary hearing on time limits only.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you receive your claim form back from the tribunal, check the reason carefully – an administrative error may not count against you.
- Keep a record of when and how you first sent your claim form, including any tracking or proof of posting.
- The tribunal rules do not require a postcode for an address to be valid – a missing postcode alone should not invalidate your claim.
- If your claim is rejected for a minor error, you may still be within time if the original presentation date is accepted.
A simple administrative error almost derailed an unfair dismissal claim
A former employee of Mulberry Homes Property Developments Ltd found himself in a procedural tangle after his claim form was returned by the tribunal administration because it lacked the postcode for the company's site address. He had posted the form on 20 April 2022, within the three-month time limit, but when it came back, he added the missing postcode and resubmitted it by special delivery on 22 April – one day after the deadline.
At a preliminary hearing in Leicester, Employment Judge Ahmed had to decide whether the claim was presented in time. The tribunal noted that the first page of the claim form bore a date stamp of 20 April 2022, alongside a "RETURNED" stamp. The judge found that the form had been rejected for an administrative reason – the missing postcode – but that the tribunal rules do not require a postcode to be included for an address to be valid.
What the losing side could have done differently
The respondent argued that the claim was out of time because the form was not properly presented until 22 April. However, the tribunal concluded that the original presentation on 20 April was valid. The administration's decision to return the form was an error, and the claimant should not be penalised for it. The judge also noted that even if he were wrong about the presentation date, he would have accepted that it was not reasonably practicable for the claim to be presented in time due to the administration's mistake.
Why this result matters
This case highlights that claimants should not be discouraged if their claim form is returned for a minor omission. The tribunal will look at the substance of the presentation, not just the date of final acceptance. It also serves as a reminder that administrative staff may sometimes apply overly strict requirements, but the tribunal's rules are designed to be accessible. For anyone bringing a claim, keeping proof of the first attempt to file – such as a date stamp or postal receipt – can be crucial in defending against a time limit challenge.
Similar cases
Race discrimination claim dismissed after social worker missed time limit
An experienced social worker's race discrimination and constructive dismissal claims against Devon County Council were dismissed because she presented her claim too late, and the tribunal refused to extend time.
Late claim for constructive dismissal: tribunal loses jurisdiction
A former employee of Greggs plc who resigned after grievances were not upheld had her unfair dismissal claim dismissed because she presented it 26 days after the three-month time limit.
Epilepsy discrimination claims dismissed as out of time: a lesson in tribunal deadlines
A fraud consultant with epilepsy lost his disability discrimination and constructive dismissal claims against Lloyds Bank because he filed them too late. The tribunal also found the claims lacked merit.
Senior nurse's unfair dismissal claim struck out after being filed over four years late
A tribunal struck out a senior nurse's unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims because she filed them more than four years after the deadline, despite knowing the time limits.