HR advisor's unfair dismissal claim dismissed as 12 days late
A tribunal has dismissed an HR advisor's unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims because he presented them 12 days late, ruling it was reasonably practicable to have filed on time.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #out-of-time
- #mental-health
- #acas-early-conciliation
- #hr-advisor
- #medical-termination
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as an HR Advisor/Co-Ordinator from 30 August 2016 until 27 April 2022.
- The claimant was absent due to mental health from 16 November 2021 until termination.
- The claimant was given 13 weeks' notice of termination on grounds of incapability on 26 January 2022.
- The claimant's appeal against dismissal was upheld on 25 April 2022, but his grievance appeal was unsuccessful on 6 June 2022.
- The claimant presented his claim on 4 September 2022, 12 days after the limitation date of 23 August 2022.
- The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present his claim in time and it was not just and equitable to extend time for the discrimination claim.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant started work as HR Advisor/Co-Ordinator.
-
Absence due to mental health
Claimant began a period of absence due to mental health issues.
-
Notice of termination
Respondent gave claimant 13 weeks' notice of termination on grounds of incapability.
-
Employment ended
Claimant's employment terminated.
-
Grievance appeal unsuccessful
Claimant was advised his grievance appeal was unsuccessful.
-
Acas notified
Claimant first notified Acas for early conciliation.
-
Acas certificate issued
Acas issued Early Conciliation Certificate.
-
Limitation date
Deadline for presenting a claim to the employment tribunal.
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented his claim, 12 days late.
-
Preliminary hearing
Public preliminary hearing to consider time limits.
-
Judgment issued
Tribunal dismissed claims as out of time.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims were presented within the legal time limits, and if not, whether time should be extended because it was not reasonably practicable (for unfair dismissal) or just and equitable (for discrimination) to file on time.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed both claims as out of time.
- The claimant's employment ended on 27 April 2022, giving him until 23 August 2022 to file an unfair dismissal claim (3 months minus 1 day). He filed on 4 September 2022, 12 days late.
- The tribunal found that although the claimant suffered from mental health issues, he was able to engage with ACAS, his new employer, and his GP during the limitation period. He also had a lay representative assisting him.
- The tribunal concluded it was reasonably practicable for him to file in time, and that the balance of prejudice did not favour extending time for the discrimination claim.
Lessons & takeaways
- The three-month time limit for unfair dismissal claims is strict – even a delay of 12 days can be fatal.
- Mental health difficulties do not automatically excuse a late claim; tribunals will assess whether you were still able to take steps to protect your rights.
- Seeking advice from ACAS or a representative early can help ensure you meet deadlines, even if you are unwell.
- If you are waiting for documents from your employer, you should still file your claim in time and request an extension separately if needed.
This case is a stark reminder that employment tribunal time limits are unforgiving. The claimant, an HR advisor with six years' service, was dismissed on capability grounds while absent with mental health issues. He presented his unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims just 12 days late, but the tribunal ruled that was enough to lose his right to bring them.
What went wrong
The claimant argued that his mental health, the stress of internal grievance and appeal processes, and a delay in receiving documents from his employer made it impossible to file on time. However, the tribunal noted that during the limitation period he had started a new job, engaged with ACAS, and sought medical help. He also had a lay representative. The judge found that, while unwell, he was still capable of presenting his claim – and that waiting for a grievance outcome or subject access request response was not a valid reason to delay.
Why the result matters
This decision reinforces that employees should not wait for internal processes to conclude before filing a tribunal claim. The clock starts ticking from the date of dismissal, not from the outcome of an appeal or grievance. Even with genuine mental health struggles, the tribunal will look at what steps you actually took during the limitation period. If you could have filed but didn't, the claim will likely be struck out.
For employers, the case also highlights the importance of clear communication about time limits, especially when dealing with vulnerable staff. However, the ultimate responsibility lies with the claimant to act in time.
Similar cases
Prison officer's unfair dismissal claim dismissed as over two years late
A prison officer with 13 years' service had her unfair dismissal claim thrown out because she presented it more than two years after being sacked. The tribunal accepted it was not reasonably practicable to claim in time due to mental health issues, but said she did not act quickly enough once able.
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.