Former agency worker's unfair dismissal claim struck out for being 3.5 years late
A former agency worker who waited over three years to bring an unfair dismissal and race discrimination claim had his case struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success. He was also ordered to pay £4,203 in costs.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #strike-out
- #time-limits
- #amendment-refused
- #costs-awarded
- #recusal-refused
Key facts
- The claimant worked for the second respondent at the first respondent's premises from 15 November 2017 to 30 June 2018.
- The claimant presented his claim on 26 March 2022, about 3.5 years after the alleged acts.
- The claimant's application to amend his claim was refused as the proposed amendments were either outside the tribunal's jurisdiction, inadequately pleaded, or doomed to fail.
- The claimant's claims were struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success due to being grossly out of time.
- The claimant was ordered to pay £4,203 in costs to the first respondent for unreasonable conduct.
Timeline
-
Employment start
The claimant began working at HMRC's premises, supplied by Maxtian Interim Ltd.
-
Employment end
The claimant's period of work ended.
-
Early conciliation started
The claimant commenced early conciliation with ACAS.
-
Claim presented
The claimant presented his ET1 claim for unfair dismissal and race discrimination.
-
Costs warning letter
The first respondent sent a costs warning letter to the claimant.
-
Amendment application
The claimant emailed an 11-page document seeking to amend his claim.
-
First preliminary hearing
Employment Judge O'Brien heard the amendment application and strike-out application.
-
Judgment on strike-out
The tribunal refused the amendment and struck out the claim as out of time.
-
Reconsideration application
The claimant applied for reconsideration of the strike-out decision.
-
Second preliminary hearing
The tribunal heard and refused the recusal and reconsideration applications, and awarded costs.
The legal issue
Whether the former employee's claims for unfair dismissal and race discrimination, presented around 3.5 years after the alleged acts, should be struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success due to being out of time, and whether he should be allowed to amend his claim to add new complaints.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out the entire claim and refused the amendment application.
- The claims were grossly out of time: the employment ended in June 2018, but the claim was not presented until March 2022, about 3.5 years later. The tribunal found no reasonable prospect of showing it was presented within the statutory time limits.
- The application to amend was refused because the proposed new claims were either outside the tribunal's jurisdiction, inadequately pleaded, or had no reasonable prospects of success.
- The claimant was ordered to pay £4,203 in costs to HMRC for unreasonable conduct in pursuing the claim.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employment tribunal claims must normally be brought within three months of the act complained of — delays of years will almost certainly result in strike-out.
- Amending a claim to add new complaints after the time limit has expired is very difficult; the new claims must arise from the same or similar facts and still be in time.
- Pursuing a claim that is clearly out of time can lead to a costs order against you, even if you are a litigant in person.
- Procedural arguments about tribunal jurisdiction or Civil Procedure Rules rarely succeed in employment tribunals, which have their own rules.
A claim that was years too late
This case shows the hard reality of employment tribunal time limits. The former employee, who worked at HMRC's premises via an agency from November 2017 to June 2018, did not present his unfair dismissal and race discrimination claim until March 2022 — nearly four years after his employment ended. The tribunal had no hesitation in striking it out.
The claimant tried to amend his claim to add further complaints, but the tribunal refused, noting the proposed amendments were either outside its jurisdiction, inadequately pleaded, or doomed to fail. The judge described the claimant's submissions as 'dense and repetitive' and noted he repeatedly resisted attempts to keep the hearing focused.
What could have been done differently
The most obvious step would have been to bring the claim within the standard three-month time limit. Even if there were reasons for delay, waiting over three years without a strong justification is almost always fatal. The claimant also spent significant energy on procedural arguments — for example, that the respondents had not properly acknowledged the claim under Civil Procedure Rules — which the tribunal pointed out do not apply in employment tribunals.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that employment tribunals take time limits seriously. Claims presented even a few weeks late can be struck out unless there are exceptional circumstances. It also shows that pursuing an obviously out-of-time claim can be costly: the claimant was ordered to pay £4,203 in costs to HMRC for unreasonable conduct. For anyone considering a claim, the first step should always be to check the deadline and, if in doubt, seek advice promptly.
Similar cases
Lead Software Consultant's whistleblowing claims dismissed as out of time
An employment tribunal struck out a Lead Software Consultant's whistleblowing detriment and automatically unfair dismissal claims, leaving only an ordinary unfair dismissal claim to proceed. The tribunal also refused the employer's bid to strike out the remaining claim due to the claimant's conduct.
Retire-and-return scheme leads to constructive dismissal claim, but breach of contract and age discrimination claims struck out
A consultant clinical scientist with 23 years' service resigned after a 'retire and return' scheme reduced her role. The tribunal struck out her breach of contract and age discrimination claims, but allowed her unfair dismissal claim to proceed.
Sexual harassment claims survive strike-out but discrimination and monetary claims fail
A former business service consultant's direct sex discrimination and bonus claims were struck out, but her sexual harassment and harassment related to sex claims will proceed to a final hearing.
Constructive dismissal claim struck out after employee failed to pursue case
A playgroup employee's constructive dismissal claim was struck out after she failed to respond to a strike-out warning, ending a case that had already been delayed by a police investigation.