Unfair dismissal claim rejected as out of time despite ongoing grievance appeal
A surveyor on a zero-hours contract lost his unfair dismissal claim after presenting it four months late, but his age discrimination claim was allowed to proceed.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant resigned on 4 May 2021 and presented his claim on 5 December 2021.
- The unfair dismissal claim was presented four months after the three-month time limit expired on 3 August 2021.
- The claimant believed the time limit started only after his grievance appeal concluded.
- The claimant had the ability to seek advice and present his claim in time but did not.
- The age discrimination claim was found to be arguably in time and allowed to proceed.
- The victimisation amendment was allowed, but the disability discrimination amendment was refused.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working for Valunation Ltd as a surveyor on a zero-hours contract.
-
Promotion applications rejected
Claimant was not shortlisted for promotion on 17 February and 2 March 2020, which he alleges was due to age.
-
Grievance submitted
Claimant submitted a written grievance alleging age discrimination and other complaints.
-
Grievance meeting
Claimant attended a grievance meeting with the respondent.
-
Grievance outcome
Respondent issued grievance outcome rejecting all complaints.
-
Resignation and appeal
Claimant resigned and submitted a detailed grievance appeal.
-
Last appeal invitation
Respondent invited claimant to an appeal hearing, but claimant declined; no further action taken.
-
Early conciliation started
Claimant contacted ACAS to start early conciliation against the first respondent.
-
EC certificate issued
ACAS issued early conciliation certificate for the first respondent.
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented his ET1 claim to the employment tribunal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the unfair dismissal and breach of contract claims were presented within the legal time limit, and whether to allow amendments to add victimisation and disability discrimination claims.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal and breach of contract claims as out of time. The claimant resigned on 4 May 2021 but did not present his claim until 5 December 2021, four months after the deadline of 3 August 2021. He argued that the time limit should start from the conclusion of his grievance appeal, but the tribunal rejected this, noting he had the ability to seek advice and present his claim in time.
The age discrimination claim was found to be arguably in time and was allowed to proceed to a full hearing. The tribunal also allowed an amendment to add a victimisation claim but refused an amendment to add a disability discrimination claim, as it was not sufficiently pleaded.
No compensation was awarded as the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- The three-month time limit for unfair dismissal claims starts from the date of dismissal (or the effective date of termination), not from the conclusion of an internal grievance or appeal.
- If you are unsure about time limits, seek legal advice early and do not rely on ongoing internal processes to extend the deadline.
- When amending a claim, ensure the new allegations are clearly pleaded and linked to the original facts; vague references may not be enough to allow the amendment.
A case of timing and process
This case highlights the strictness of time limits in unfair dismissal claims, even when an employee believes that an internal grievance appeal might reset the clock. The claimant, a surveyor with eight years' service on a zero-hours contract, resigned on 4 May 2021 after his grievance was rejected. He then pursued an appeal, but the tribunal found that the three-month time limit for presenting an unfair dismissal claim had already expired on 3 August 2021. By the time he presented his claim on 5 December 2021, it was four months late.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant had the capacity to seek advice and present his claim in time, but he mistakenly thought the deadline ran from the end of his appeal. This was not considered a reasonable excuse, so the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.
What could have been done differently
The claimant could have protected his position by presenting his claim within the initial three-month window, even if the appeal was ongoing. Tribunals can stay proceedings while internal processes continue, but missing the deadline is fatal. Employers, too, should be aware that a delayed grievance process does not extend the statutory time limit.
Why this matters
For employees considering an unfair dismissal claim, the key lesson is to act promptly. The age discrimination claim survived because it was arguably in time, and the tribunal allowed a victimisation amendment. This shows that different claims may have different time limits, and legal advice should be sought early to avoid losing rights.
Similar cases
Missed promotion while off sick: constructive dismissal claim fails
An occupational therapy assistant who missed a promotion opportunity while on sick leave because she did not check her work email has lost her constructive dismissal claim. The tribunal ruled the oversight was unintentional.
Social worker's constructive dismissal claim dismissed as out of time
A social worker who resigned after a supervision session had her constructive unfair dismissal claim thrown out because she waited too long to bring it. Other discrimination claims were allowed to proceed.
Menopause-related constructive dismissal and discrimination claims fail against Experian
An IT consultant who resigned after being placed on performance improvement plans while experiencing menopausal symptoms lost her claims for constructive unfair dismissal and discrimination. The tribunal found Experian's actions were reasonable and not discriminatory.
Payments consultant allowed to add minimum wage and wrongful dismissal claims
A tribunal has granted a payments consultant permission to amend his claim to include wrongful dismissal and National Minimum Wage complaints, but refused to add automatic unfair dismissal. The case highlights the hurdles of bringing claims when working through a limited company.