Former employee's unfair dismissal claim struck out as five months late
A tribunal struck out a former employee's claims because they were presented five months late, and refused to extend time even after the employee submitted additional medical evidence.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant's claims were struck out as presented outside the statutory time limit.
- The tribunal found it would not be just and equitable to extend time.
- The claimant applied for reconsideration, submitting additional medical evidence.
- The reconsideration was refused because the new evidence did not explain the delay.
- The claimant had capacity to pursue other activities during the delay period.
Timeline
-
Case management hearing
EJ Khan set out legal principles for time limit extension.
-
Case management order
EJ Hodgson ordered claimant to file medical evidence for late submission.
-
Preliminary hearing
Hearing on time limit issue.
-
Strike-out judgment
Claims struck out as out of time.
-
Reconsideration application
Claimant applied for reconsideration with medical evidence.
-
First reconsideration judgment
Reconsideration refused.
-
Second reconsideration judgment
Reconsideration refused after considering Dr Judge's letter.
The legal issue
Whether the tribunal should extend the statutory time limit for presenting an unfair dismissal claim when the claimant was five months late and relied on medical conditions to explain the delay.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out the claimant's claims as presented outside the statutory time limit. It refused to extend time because the claimant had capacity to pursue other activities during the delay period, and the additional medical evidence did not explain the specific delay in filing the claim. The reconsideration application was also refused.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you miss the three-month time limit for an unfair dismissal claim, you must provide specific medical evidence showing why you could not file on time — general condition summaries are not enough.
- The tribunal expects you to take steps to protect your claim even if you are unwell; engaging in other activities during the delay period will weaken your case for an extension.
- You are responsible for putting relevant medical evidence before the tribunal at the earliest opportunity — do not assume the tribunal will ask for it.
- A reconsideration application must be made within 14 days, and new evidence must directly address the reason for the delay, not just describe your conditions in general terms.
What this case shows in practice
This case illustrates how strictly employment tribunals apply the statutory time limit for bringing claims. The former employee's claims were presented five months after the deadline, and although they submitted medical evidence about various conditions — including long COVID, ADHD, dyslexia, PTSD and autism — the tribunal found that this did not explain why they could not have filed on time. The tribunal noted that the claimant had capacity to pursue other activities during the delay period, which undermined the argument that their conditions prevented them from acting.
What the losing side could have done differently
The claimant could have sought advice earlier about the time limit and made a protective claim, even if incomplete, within the three-month window. They were also put on notice by a case management order to file medical evidence specifically addressing the delay, but the evidence they later submitted was general in nature. The tribunal emphasised that it is for the claimant to put forward relevant evidence — not for the tribunal to seek it out.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This decision reinforces that claimants cannot rely on general medical summaries to justify a late claim. The evidence must directly address why the claimant was unable to present the claim in time, particularly if they were able to engage in other activities. It also highlights that reconsideration applications are unlikely to succeed unless the new evidence clearly explains the delay and could not have been provided earlier.
Similar cases
Employer's failure to comply with tribunal orders leads to strike out and £15,000 award
A local authority employee was awarded £15,483 after her employer's response was struck out for failing to comply with case management orders, leaving the tribunal unable to hold a fair hearing.
Disability harassment and victimisation: former employee awarded £320,000 after employer goes into liquidation
A former employee with a disability was awarded over £320,000 after an employment tribunal found she was harassed, victimised, and unfairly dismissed by Woods Catering Staffordshire Ltd and its director.
Former ambulance service employee's claim struck out as out of time
A former ambulance service employee had her unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims struck out after lodging them over three weeks late. She was ordered to pay £4,305.48 in costs.
Claims struck out after former employee failed to comply with tribunal orders
A former employee's unfair dismissal and discrimination claims against Aspinalls Club were struck out after repeated failures to provide required documents and respond to tribunal orders.