Constructive dismissal claim thrown out: a year's delay was too long despite mental health issues
A business analyst who resigned from Barclays in April 2021 but did not bring his claim until August 2022 had his case dismissed as out of time. The tribunal found his mental health condition did not prevent him from acting sooner.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant resigned on 20 April 2021, claiming constructive dismissal.
- The claimant presented his claim on 18 August 2022, over a year after the time limit expired.
- The claimant was diagnosed with psychosis and received treatment from February 2023.
- The claimant was able to contact ACAS, the police, and other organisations during the delay period.
- The claimant provided limited medical evidence for the period before July 2022.
Timeline
-
Employment start
Claimant began employment as a business analyst at Barclays Executive Services Ltd.
-
Resignation
Claimant resigned, claiming constructive dismissal due to employer's failure to manage conflicts of interest.
-
ACAS early conciliation started
Claimant began ACAS early conciliation against Barclays Plc.
-
ACAS early conciliation ended
ACAS early conciliation concluded against the second respondent.
-
Medical appointment
Claimant reported extreme anxiety and hearing voices.
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented his claim to the Employment Tribunal, over a year after the time limit.
-
Psychosis diagnosis
A community psychiatric nurse confirmed diagnosis of first episode psychosis.
-
Preliminary hearing
Employment Judge Hook heard submissions on jurisdiction and time limits.
-
Judgment issued
Tribunal dismissed all claims as out of time.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether it had jurisdiction to hear claims brought over a year after the time limit expired, and whether to extend time on the grounds that it was not reasonably practicable (for unfair dismissal) or just and equitable (for discrimination) to bring them in time.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims as out of time.
- The claimant resigned on 20 April 2021 but did not present his claim until 18 August 2022 — over a year after the deadline.
- He argued that his mental health (psychosis) prevented him from acting in time, but the tribunal noted he was able to contact ACAS, the police and other organisations during the delay period.
- Limited medical evidence was provided for the period before July 2022, and the diagnosis of psychosis came only in February 2023.
- No compensation was awarded as the claims were struck out.
Lessons & takeaways
- The three-month time limit for bringing an employment tribunal claim is strict — even serious mental health issues may not justify an extension if you can still manage other tasks.
- If you intend to rely on a medical condition to explain a delay, you need contemporaneous medical evidence covering the entire period of the delay.
- Contacting ACAS early conciliation does not pause the time limit indefinitely — you must still present your claim promptly after conciliation ends.
- Claims under health and safety, data protection or human rights legislation cannot be brought in an employment tribunal unless a specific statute gives it jurisdiction.
This case shows how unforgiving employment tribunal time limits can be, even when a claimant has serious mental health difficulties. The business analyst resigned from Barclays in April 2021 claiming constructive dismissal, but did not lodge his claim until August 2022 — more than a year after the three-month deadline had passed.
Why the delay mattered
The tribunal accepted that the claimant had been diagnosed with psychosis and was hearing voices, but it noted that during the period of delay he was still able to contact ACAS, the police and other organisations. The medical evidence he provided only covered the period from July 2022 onwards, leaving a gap of over a year with no explanation. The judge concluded that it had been reasonably practicable for him to bring his claim in time, and that it would not be just and equitable to extend time for the discrimination claims.
What the employer did right
Barclays applied to strike out the claims at a preliminary hearing, arguing that the tribunal had no jurisdiction because the claims were out of time. The tribunal agreed, and also dismissed claims under health and safety, data protection and human rights legislation on the basis that the employment tribunal has no power to hear them.
What this means for similar claims
Anyone considering an employment tribunal claim should act quickly — the clock starts ticking from the date of the dismissal or the last act of discrimination. If a medical condition is going to be used to explain a delay, it is essential to obtain medical evidence covering the whole period. This case is a reminder that tribunals will look at what the claimant was actually able to do during the delay, not just at the diagnosis.
Similar cases
Deputy team manager's constructive dismissal claims struck out as out of time
A social worker who resigned claiming constructive dismissal had all her claims struck out after presenting them two weeks late. The tribunal refused amendments and found no reasonable excuse for the delay.
Procurement director's constructive dismissal claim over whistleblowing and disability fails
A procurement director who resigned after raising concerns about commission on expired contracts has lost her tribunal claims for constructive unfair dismissal, whistleblowing detriment and disability discrimination.
Constructive dismissal after hostile return from sick leave: disability discrimination and harassment
A Commercial Manager who was shouted at and demeaned after returning from depression-related sick leave was constructively dismissed. The tribunal awarded £56,542 for unfair dismissal, disability discrimination and harassment.
Furlough refusal during pandemic: HGV driver's constructive dismissal claim fails
An HGV driver with COPD who resigned after his employer refused to furlough him in November 2020 has lost his unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims. The tribunal found the employer correctly interpreted the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme rules.