Dismissed and out of time: tribunal allows claim after year-long delay
A former employee who submitted her unfair dismissal claim nearly a year late has been allowed to proceed after the tribunal found she was reasonably ignorant of the correct procedure.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #out-of-time-claim
- #reasonably-practicable
- #ignorance-of-procedure
- #original-claim-rejected
- #acas-early-conciliation
- #covid-19-delays
Key facts
- Mrs Bush was dismissed on 11 August 2020.
- She submitted an original claim on 25 August 2020 but it was rejected because she named the wrong respondent.
- She did not realise she could submit a new claim until a chance conversation with a solicitor in August 2021.
- She submitted the current claim on 18 October 2021, nearly a year late.
- The tribunal found it was not reasonably practicable for her to present the claim in time due to reasonable ignorance.
- The claim was presented within a reasonable further period given the circumstances.
Timeline
-
Dismissal notified
Mrs Bush was notified of her dismissal, with employment terminating on 11 August 2020.
-
Appeal lodged
Mrs Bush appealed the dismissal by letter.
-
Appeal refused
The respondent refused the appeal.
-
ACAS early conciliation started
Mrs Bush notified ACAS; certificate issued on 3 August 2020.
-
Original claim submitted
Mrs Bush submitted a claim but named the wrong respondent (Sarah Charlesworth).
-
Original claim rejected
The tribunal rejected the claim due to respondent name mismatch.
-
Out-of-time reconsideration request
Mrs Bush emailed the tribunal asking to reopen her case.
-
Follow-up email
Mrs Bush chased the status of her reconsideration request.
-
Further follow-up
Mrs Bush again enquired about her original claim.
-
Solicitor conversation
Mrs Bush spoke informally to a solicitor who suggested she submit a new claim.
-
Current claim submitted
Mrs Bush submitted the current claim for unfair dismissal.
-
Reconsideration refused
The tribunal refused the out-of-time reconsideration application.
-
Preliminary hearing (time limit)
Employment Judge Reed heard the time limit issue and granted an extension.
-
Full merits hearing
Employment Judge Corrigan heard the unfair dismissal claim.
-
Judgment
The tribunal found unfair dismissal but made no award of compensation.
The legal issue
Whether the claimant's unfair dismissal claim, presented nearly a year late, should be allowed to proceed because it was not reasonably practicable to present it in time and it was presented within a reasonable further period.
The outcome
The tribunal granted an extension of time, allowing the claimant's unfair dismissal claim to proceed despite being significantly out of time.
Key reasons:
- The claimant had submitted an original claim in time but it was rejected because she named the wrong respondent (an individual rather than the LLP).
- She did not realise she could submit a new claim until a chance conversation with a solicitor over a year later.
- The tribunal found her ignorance was reasonable in the circumstances, especially given the pandemic and the fact she was unrepresented.
No compensation was awarded as the merits of the claim were not yet determined at this preliminary hearing.
Lessons & takeaways
- If your original tribunal claim is rejected, check whether you can submit a new one – don't assume it's too late.
- Ignorance of employment tribunal procedure can be a valid reason for missing a deadline, especially if you are unrepresented.
- Keep copies of all correspondence with the tribunal and ACAS, as they may help explain delays.
- A chance conversation with a solicitor or advice worker can be crucial – don't be afraid to seek informal guidance.
This case shows how the employment tribunal's strict time limits can be flexible when a claimant has made a genuine mistake and acted promptly once they understood the process.
What happened
The claimant was dismissed in August 2020 and submitted an online claim within the three-month window. However, she named the company's owner instead of the LLP itself – a common error for unrepresented claimants. The tribunal rejected the claim but the standard rejection email did not clearly explain that she could simply resubmit with the correct name. Instead, it listed options like reconsideration or appeal, which confused her.
She spent the next year emailing the tribunal to ask about her original claim, but did not realise she could start again. It was only after a casual conversation with a solicitor in August 2021 that she understood her mistake and filed the correct claim in October 2021 – nearly 14 months after her dismissal.
What the losing side could have done differently
The respondent argued that the claimant should have read the tribunal's guidance more carefully. However, the judge noted that the rejection email's standard wording was misleading for her situation. A clearer explanation from the tribunal at the rejection stage might have avoided the delay entirely.
Why this matters
This decision confirms that the 'reasonably practicable' test is applied with common sense. Claimants who act in good faith, are unrepresented, and face confusing procedural hurdles can still get a fair hearing even if they miss the deadline by many months. However, the extension is not automatic – the tribunal will examine each case carefully, and claimants should seek advice as soon as they encounter problems.
Similar cases
Unfair dismissal claim struck out for being 12 days late
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim was dismissed because she presented it 12 days after the three-month deadline. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for her to have claimed on time.
Unfair dismissal claim struck out after email submission ignored automatic reply
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim was struck out as out of time after she emailed her ET1 form and failed to read the tribunal's automatic reply stating that claims cannot be accepted by email.
Dismissed by email: a day's delay that cost the claim
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim was thrown out because he contacted ACAS two days after the three-month deadline, even though he read his dismissal email the day after it was sent.
Constructive dismissal claim thrown out for being over two months late
A former employee who resigned and then waited until after his grievance appeal to bring an unfair dismissal claim was too late. The tribunal ruled it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim, which was presented over two months after the three-month time limit expired.