Constructive dismissal claim dismissed as out of time: the importance of acting promptly
A Quality Assurance Expert who resigned claiming constructive dismissal had her entire claim thrown out because she waited over three months to begin Early Conciliation. The tribunal found no excuse for the delay.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant resigned on 7 January 2022 claiming constructive dismissal.
- She did not begin Early Conciliation until 5 May 2022, over three months after resignation.
- The claimant had access to ACAS and a solicitor brother but made no enquiries about time limits.
- The tribunal found the claimant was jolted into action by the respondent's letter of 29 April 2022.
- No medical evidence was provided to support the claim that medication prevented earlier action.
Timeline
-
Grievance raised
Claimant raised a formal grievance about failure to accommodate her disability regarding seating arrangements.
-
Grievance meeting
Grievance meeting held at claimant's home; she had been off sick since mid-November.
-
Grievance outcome
Respondent rejected the grievance; claimant appealed the same day.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal hearing conducted online.
-
Appeal outcome
Appeal rejected; original outcome upheld.
-
Resignation
Claimant resigned with immediate effect, citing constructive dismissal.
-
New employment
Claimant started new full-time job.
-
Second new job
Claimant began another new job.
-
Respondent's letters
Respondent sent letters alleging breach of confidentiality and false reference information.
-
Early Conciliation
Claimant contacted ACAS for Early Conciliation.
-
Claim presented
Claim form presented to tribunal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims were filed within the statutory time limits, and if not, whether time should be extended on the grounds that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim earlier, or that it would be just and equitable to do so.
The outcome
The tribunal decided that the claims were presented out of time and refused to extend the deadline.
- The unfair dismissal claim failed because the claimant did not show it was 'not reasonably practicable' to present it in time — she had access to ACAS and a solicitor brother but made no enquiries about time limits.
- The disability discrimination claim failed because it was not 'just and equitable' to extend time — the claimant was well enough to start new jobs and manage her affairs, and the delay was substantial.
- No compensation was awarded as the claims were dismissed in their entirety.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are considering an employment tribunal claim, you must start Early Conciliation with ACAS within three months of the date of dismissal — this is a strict deadline.
- Claiming constructive dismissal does not pause the time limit — the clock starts ticking on the day you resign, not when internal processes end.
- Being on medication or feeling 'fuzzy headed' will not excuse a delay unless you provide medical evidence showing you were unable to act.
- Having access to a solicitor or ACAS advice and failing to use it counts against you — tribunals expect you to make reasonable enquiries about deadlines.
- If you receive a letter from your former employer after resigning, that does not reset the time limit — it may prompt you to act, but it does not justify a fresh delay.
This case is a stark reminder that employment tribunal claims have strict time limits that cannot be ignored, even when the employee feels they have been wronged. The claimant, a Quality Assurance Expert with nearly three years' service, resigned in January 2022 claiming constructive dismissal after her grievance about disability accommodations was rejected. She then waited over three months before contacting ACAS for Early Conciliation, by which time the primary time limit had already expired.
What went wrong
The tribunal found that the claimant had access to ACAS and a brother who was a solicitor, yet she made no enquiries about time limits. She argued that her medication made her 'fuzzy headed', but provided no medical evidence to support this. Meanwhile, she was well enough to start two new full-time jobs and manage her correspondence. The tribunal noted that she was only 'jolted into action' by the employer's letters in late April 2022, but that did not excuse the earlier delay.
Why the result matters
This case shows that tribunals take time limits very seriously. Even if you have a strong claim for constructive dismissal or disability discrimination, failing to act promptly can be fatal. The claimant's entire case was dismissed without any consideration of the merits. For anyone considering a tribunal claim, the lesson is clear: start Early Conciliation as soon as possible after the dismissal, and if you need more time, you must have a solid, evidence-based reason for the delay.
Similar cases
Constructive dismissal claim dismissed as five days late: the importance of tribunal time limits
A telesales advisor who resigned after a flexible working request was refused had her unfair dismissal and discrimination claims thrown out because she submitted her claim five days past the deadline, despite knowing the time limit.
Constructive dismissal claim fails as tribunal refuses to extend time limit
A former Network Rail employee's constructive dismissal and breach of contract claims were thrown out because he missed the three-month time limit by three days. The tribunal refused to extend time, finding he had not shown it was not reasonably practicable to claim on time.
Constructive dismissal claim struck out after employee failed to pursue case
A playgroup employee's constructive dismissal claim was struck out after she failed to respond to a strike-out warning, ending a case that had already been delayed by a police investigation.
Caretaker's unfair dismissal claim struck out as time-barred, but discrimination claim allowed
A caretaker with 9 years' service had his unfair dismissal claim struck out for being six weeks late, but his disability discrimination claim was allowed to proceed. No compensation awarded.