Constructive dismissal claim thrown out for being 5 days late
A former employee's constructive unfair dismissal and discrimination claims were dismissed because they were presented 5 days late, with no medical evidence covering the relevant period.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed from 23 June 2015 to 9 June 2022.
- The effective date of termination was 9 June 2022.
- ACAS Early Conciliation started on 6 September 2022 and certificate issued on 18 October 2022.
- The claim was presented to the tribunal on 24 November 2022, 5 days late.
- No medical evidence covered the period October–November 2022.
- The claimant's representative did not call the claimant to give evidence.
Timeline
-
Employment started
The claimant began employment with the respondent.
-
Employment ended
The claimant resigned and gave one month's notice; effective date of termination.
-
ACAS Early Conciliation started
The claimant approached ACAS to commence early conciliation.
-
ACAS certificate issued
Early Conciliation certificate was issued.
-
Claim presented to tribunal
The claimant presented her claim to the Employment Tribunal, 5 days late.
-
Preliminary hearing
The tribunal heard submissions on whether to extend time for the late claims.
The legal issue
Whether the tribunal should extend the time limit for a constructive unfair dismissal claim (where the test is 'not reasonably practicable') and for Equality Act claims (where the test is 'just and equitable'), when the claim was only 5 days late.
The outcome
The tribunal decided that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claims because they were presented late.
- The claimant resigned on 9 June 2022, started ACAS early conciliation on 6 September 2022 (within time), but the certificate was issued on 18 October 2022, and the claim was presented on 24 November 2022 – 5 days late.
- No medical evidence covered the period October–November 2022 when the claim was due. The claimant's representative did not call the claimant to give evidence.
- The tribunal found the claimant had not established that it was not reasonably practicable to bring the unfair dismissal claim in time, nor that it would be just and equitable to extend time for the Equality Act claims.
- No compensation was awarded because the claims were dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are bringing a claim, make sure you present it to the tribunal within the time limit – even a few days late can be fatal.
- If you need extra time due to ill health, provide medical evidence covering the exact period when the claim was due.
- You (or your representative) should give evidence about why the claim was late – the tribunal cannot rely on submissions alone.
- For unfair dismissal, the test for extending time is strict: you must show it was 'not reasonably practicable' to file on time, not just that you were unwell.
- For discrimination claims, the tribunal has wider discretion, but you still need a good reason and evidence for the delay.
A tight deadline that could not be stretched
This case shows how unforgiving employment tribunal time limits can be. The former employee, who had worked for Monster Energy Europe Ltd for seven years, resigned in June 2022 and brought claims for constructive unfair dismissal and discrimination. She started ACAS early conciliation in time, but after the certificate was issued, she had one month to present her claim to the tribunal. She missed that deadline by just five days.
Why the tribunal said no
The tribunal considered whether to extend time. For the unfair dismissal claim, the law requires the employee to show it was 'not reasonably practicable' to file on time. The claimant's representative argued that she had mental health issues, but the medical evidence only covered periods before and after the relevant window – not October and November 2022 when the claim was due. Crucially, the claimant herself did not give evidence about the delay. The tribunal was left with only submissions, which were not enough.
For the discrimination claims, the test is more flexible – 'just and equitable' – but the same lack of evidence applied. The tribunal noted that the substance of the claims appeared weak and kept changing, which did not help the claimant's case on prejudice.
What this means for others
This case is a reminder that time limits are strictly enforced. Even a short delay can end a claim, especially if the employee cannot explain it with clear evidence. If you are unwell, get a doctor's note covering the exact period you need to rely on. And if you have a representative, make sure they put you forward to give evidence about the delay – the tribunal needs to hear from you, not just your lawyer. The result here was harsh but predictable: the claims were dismissed without ever being considered on their merits.
Similar cases
Finance Director with 24 years' service wins constructive dismissal and discrimination claim
A tribunal found that a finance director with 24 years' service was constructively dismissed and subjected to sex and race discrimination after being passed over for managing director and told her chairman had lost confidence in her. She was awarded £112,007.
Constructive dismissal after account reallocation and performance plan: a flawed process
A Services Account Manager with four years' service was constructively and unfairly dismissed after SAP placed her on a performance improvement plan and reallocated her largest accounts without proper process. The tribunal dismissed her discrimination claims.
Race discrimination claim dismissed after social worker missed time limit
An experienced social worker's race discrimination and constructive dismissal claims against Devon County Council were dismissed because she presented her claim too late, and the tribunal refused to extend time.
Black psychiatric nurse passed over for dual diagnosis lead role: race and sex discrimination upheld
A Black African community psychiatric nurse with 15 years' service was found to have been discriminated against when two white female colleagues were appointed to a specialist lead role he was qualified for. The tribunal upheld his claims of direct race and sex discrimination and harassment.