Office manager's unfair dismissal claim struck out as over a year late
A tribunal struck out an office manager's unfair dismissal claim because he presented it more than a year after his employment ended by mutual consent, far beyond the three-month time limit.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #out-of-time
- #mutual-termination
- #furlough
- #part-time-request
- #acas-early-conciliation
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as Office Manager from 26 June 2006 until 30 September 2021.
- The claimant requested part-time work after furlough but the role required full-time hours.
- The claimant did not attend work or receive pay after September 2021 and made no contact for about a year.
- The tribunal found the employment ended by mutual consent on 30 September 2021.
- The claimant presented his claim on 30 November 2022, over a year after termination.
- The tribunal held it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working for the respondent as Office Manager.
-
Furlough due to COVID-19
The claimant was furloughed during the pandemic lockdown.
-
Return to work discussions
The respondent discussed returning to work with employees; claimant requested part-time hours.
-
Employment ended by mutual consent
The tribunal found the employment ended by mutual agreement on this date.
-
P45 issued
A P45 was issued showing termination date of 30 September 2021.
-
Early Conciliation started
Claimant began ACAS Early Conciliation.
-
Early Conciliation certificate issued
ACAS certificate issued.
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented his claim to the tribunal, naming an individual instead of the company.
-
Strike out hearing
Hearing to determine whether claims should be struck out as out of time.
-
Judgment issued
Employment Judge M Ord struck out all claims as out of time.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's claims for unfair dismissal, breach of contract, unpaid holiday pay, and redundancy payment were presented within the statutory time limits, and if not, whether it was not reasonably practicable to do so.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out all claims as out of time. The employment ended by mutual consent on 30 September 2021, but the claimant did not present his claim until 30 November 2022 — over 13 months later. The tribunal found that it was reasonably practicable to have presented the claim within the three-month limit, and the delay was not justified.
No compensation was awarded as the claims were struck out.
Lessons & takeaways
- Unfair dismissal claims must be presented to the tribunal within three months of the effective date of termination, subject to ACAS early conciliation extensions.
- If you stop attending work and receiving pay without formal agreement, the tribunal may find that employment ended by mutual consent, triggering the time limit.
- Delaying by a year without good reason will almost certainly result in claims being struck out as out of time.
- Naming an individual instead of the company on the claim form is a common error but can be corrected; it does not excuse a late claim.
- Receiving a P45 months after termination does not reset the time limit for bringing a claim.
This case shows how critical it is to act quickly if you believe you have been unfairly dismissed. The office manager had worked for A1 Taxis Ilford Limited for 15 years, but after furlough and a request to work part-time, his employment ended by mutual consent in September 2021. He did not attend work or receive pay, and made no contact for about a year. He only began ACAS early conciliation in October 2022 and presented his claim in November 2022 — over 13 months after the termination.
What the tribunal decided
The tribunal struck out all claims — unfair dismissal, breach of contract, unpaid holiday pay, and redundancy — because they were presented far beyond the statutory time limits. The law requires most employment claims to be brought within three months of the termination date (six months for a redundancy payment). The tribunal found that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented his claim in time, and the long delay was not justified.
What could have been done differently
The claimant could have sought legal advice or contacted ACAS as soon as his employment ended. Even if he was unsure whether he had been dismissed, he should have acted within three months of the last day he worked or received pay. The tribunal noted that he took no steps to clarify his employment status for a year, which was fatal to his case.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that employment tribunals strictly enforce time limits. Even a strong claim on the merits will be struck out if it is presented too late. Employees who believe they have been unfairly dismissed should act promptly, ideally within weeks of the termination, to preserve their right to bring a claim.
Similar cases
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.
Former employee's claim dismissed as one day late: ADHD and technical issues not enough
A former DHL employee's unfair dismissal claim was thrown out after being filed one day late. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to submit on time, rejecting ADHD and technical difficulties as excuses.