Parts Sales Manager's unfair dismissal claim dismissed as out of time despite Covid home-schooling
A tribunal dismissed an unfair dismissal claim from a Parts Sales Manager with 14 years' service because he presented it over four months late, ruling it was reasonably practicable for him to have done so in time.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was dismissed on 4 September 2020.
- The claimant presented his unfair dismissal claim on 15 April 2021, over four months after the three-month time limit expired.
- The claimant was unaware of the time limit for bringing a tribunal claim.
- During the delay, the claimant was focused on home schooling his son and caring for his wife who was ill with Covid-19.
- The claimant had internet access throughout the period but did not research his rights.
- The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present his claim in time.
Timeline
-
Employment start
The claimant began working for Chassis Cab Ltd as Parts Sales Manager.
-
Dismissal
The claimant was dismissed following a disciplinary hearing.
-
Appeal rejected
The claimant's appeal against dismissal was rejected.
-
Time limit expiry
The three-month time limit for presenting an unfair dismissal claim expired.
-
Early Conciliation notification
The claimant contacted ACAS and gave formal notification for Early Conciliation.
-
EC certificate issued
The Early Conciliation certificate was issued.
-
Claim presented
The claimant presented his claim to the Employment Tribunal.
-
Preliminary hearing (unfair dismissal)
Employment Judge Parkin held a preliminary hearing to determine jurisdiction for the unfair dismissal claim.
-
Preliminary hearing (age discrimination)
Employment Judge Boyes held a preliminary hearing to determine jurisdiction for the age discrimination claim.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's unfair dismissal claim was presented within the statutory three-month time limit, and if not, whether it was reasonably practicable for him to have presented it in time.
The outcome
The tribunal decided that the claimant's unfair dismissal claim was presented out of time and that it was reasonably practicable for him to have presented it in time. Therefore, the claim was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
The key reason was that the claimant had internet access throughout the period and could have researched his rights, but he did not do so. His focus on home-schooling and caring for his wife, while understandable, did not make it not reasonably practicable to submit the claim on time.
No compensation was awarded as the claim was dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Ignorance of the three-month time limit for unfair dismissal claims is not a valid excuse if you have internet access and could have researched it.
- Personal difficulties like home-schooling or caring for a sick relative will not automatically extend the time limit if you could have still presented your claim.
- Contact ACAS or a solicitor as soon as possible after dismissal to avoid missing the deadline.
- The 'reasonably practicable' test is a high bar; you must show that it was not feasible to submit the claim in time, not just that you were busy or stressed.
A costly delay
This case shows how missing the three-month deadline for an unfair dismissal claim can be fatal, even when the employee has a long service record and faced genuine personal challenges. The Parts Sales Manager, who had worked for Chassis Cab Ltd for 14 years, was dismissed in September 2020. He did not present his claim until April 2021 – over four months late.
What went wrong
The claimant argued that he was unaware of the time limit and that his focus was on home-schooling his son and caring for his wife, who was seriously ill with Covid-19. He also said he had no laptop or PC, only a mobile phone and tablet. However, the tribunal noted that he had internet access throughout the period and could have researched his employment rights. The fact that he did not do so meant it was reasonably practicable for him to have presented the claim in time.
What could have been done differently
The claimant could have contacted ACAS or a solicitor soon after his dismissal, even if only to ask about deadlines. The tribunal acknowledged the difficulties of the pandemic, but stressed that the test is not whether it was reasonable to delay, but whether it was 'reasonably practicable' to present the claim in time. The claimant's failure to make any enquiries until March 2021 – six months after dismissal – was fatal.
Why this matters
This decision is a reminder that employment tribunal time limits are strictly enforced. Personal circumstances, while sympathetic, will only rarely justify a late claim. Employees who believe they have been unfairly dismissed should seek advice immediately, as the three-month clock starts ticking from the effective date of termination.
Similar cases
Taxi driver's unfair dismissal and discrimination claims dismissed as out of time
A taxi driver who waited over six months to bring his claim after Uber deactivated his account has had his case thrown out by the Nottingham tribunal for being well outside the three-month time limit.
Former employee's claims dismissed as out of time after failing to attend hearing
A tribunal dismissed all claims from a former Teleperformance Ltd employee because they were presented too late and the claimant did not attend the final hearing or provide any explanation for the delay.
Former employee's discrimination claims dismissed for being out of time
A former employee's claims of age and race discrimination against Hydrosphere UK Ltd were dismissed as out of time, and his unfair dismissal claim was struck out for lack of service.
Hygiene operative's unfair dismissal claim fails as tribunal finds no excuse for delay
A hygiene operative who waited over five months to bring an unfair dismissal claim had his case thrown out as the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to have filed on time.