Car mechanic dismissed over missing tool: tribunal throws out claim as too late
A car mechanic who was summarily dismissed after a missing tool was found in his toolbox had his unfair dismissal claim rejected because he presented it 17 days after the legal deadline.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a mechanic from 1 June 2016 until dismissal on 1 May 2021.
- On 1 May 2021, the claimant was sent home after a missing tool was found in his toolbox.
- On 3 May 2021, the claimant was told he had been dismissed for theft of tools.
- The claimant presented his claim on 17 September 2021, 17 days after the three-month deadline from 1 May 2021.
- The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present his claim in time.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as a car mechanic with A&S MOT Slough Limited.
-
Respondent incorporated
NK MOT Limited incorporated; claimant's employment transferred to this company.
-
Claimant resigned
Claimant gave two weeks' notice but later agreed to continue employment.
-
Resignation withdrawn
Claimant and Mr Noori agreed that employment would continue.
-
Dismissal
Claimant sent home after missing tool found in his toolbox; told to leave.
-
Dismissal confirmed
Claimant and his wife visited workplace; told he was dismissed for theft.
-
First ACAS early conciliation
Claimant started early conciliation with ACAS.
-
First ACAS ended
First early conciliation period ended.
-
Second ACAS early conciliation
Second early conciliation started.
-
Second ACAS ended
Second early conciliation ended.
-
Claim presented
Claim form presented to the tribunal.
The legal issue
Whether the claimant's unfair dismissal and related claims were presented within the statutory time limit, and if not, whether it was reasonably practicable for him to have done so.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim because it was presented too late.
- The claimant was dismissed on 1 May 2021 but did not present his claim until 17 September 2021, 17 days after the three-month deadline.
- Although he had started ACAS early conciliation twice, the tribunal held that it was reasonably practicable for him to have presented the claim in time.
- As a result, the tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider any of his complaints, including unfair dismissal, unpaid wages, and failure to provide written reasons.
Lessons & takeaways
- The three-month time limit for bringing an unfair dismissal claim starts from the effective date of termination, not from when you receive a P45 or written confirmation.
- Starting ACAS early conciliation does not automatically extend the deadline — you must still present your claim to the tribunal within the overall time limit.
- If you are unsure about the exact date of dismissal, seek legal advice promptly; delays caused by misunderstanding the date are unlikely to be excused.
- A lay representative may not be familiar with tribunal deadlines — it is your responsibility to ensure the claim is filed on time.
This case is a stark reminder that even a strong unfair dismissal claim can fail if it is not brought in time. The claimant, a car mechanic with nearly five years' service, was summarily dismissed after a missing tyre socket was found in his toolbox. He was told to leave immediately and later informed he had been dismissed for theft. The employer did not follow any disciplinary procedure.
The time limit trap
The claimant believed he was dismissed on 2 June 2021, the date he received his P45. However, the tribunal found that the effective date of termination was 1 May 2021, when he was sent home and told not to return. Under employment law, the three-month deadline runs from that date, not from when the paperwork arrives. The claimant presented his claim on 17 September 2021 — 17 days too late.
He had started ACAS early conciliation twice, but the tribunal held that it was reasonably practicable for him to have presented the claim in time. The delay was not caused by any fault of ACAS or the employer; the claimant simply misunderstood the deadline.
What the employer could have done differently
While the time limit issue meant the tribunal never examined the fairness of the dismissal, the employer's conduct was clearly problematic. There was no investigation, no disciplinary hearing, and no right of appeal. A fair procedure would have required the employer to give the claimant an opportunity to explain how the tool came to be in his toolbox and to consider alternative explanations before deciding to dismiss.
Why this matters
For anyone considering an unfair dismissal claim, this case underscores the importance of acting quickly. The deadline is strict and rarely extended. Even if you are waiting for documents or trying to resolve matters informally, you should protect your position by presenting a claim to the tribunal within three months of the effective date of termination. If in doubt, seek advice from a solicitor or an advice agency such as Citizens Advice.
Similar cases
Senior consultant cardiac surgeon's unfair dismissal claim thrown out for being five months late
A consultant cardiac surgeon who presented his unfair dismissal claim five months after the deadline was refused an extension. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for him to have claimed in time, despite his health issues and lack of awareness of the time limit.
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.
Unfair dismissal claim thrown out for being two months late
A former security guard's unfair dismissal claim was dismissed after he presented it two months after the deadline. The tribunal ruled it was reasonably practicable for him to have filed on time despite his mental health issues and lack of legal knowledge.
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.