Parkinson's and technical issues: tribunal extends time for unfair dismissal claim
A university academic with Parkinson's disease was allowed to pursue her unfair dismissal claim 10 days late after the tribunal found it was not reasonably practicable to file on time due to her disability and IT problems.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #parkinsons-disease
- #disability
- #protected-disclosure
- #time-limit
- #strike-out
- #deposit-order
Key facts
- The claimant was employed by the University of the West of England and was dismissed on 14 July 2020.
- She presented her unfair dismissal and breach of contract claims on 16 December 2020, 10 days out of time.
- Employment Judge Brace extended time for those claims, finding it was not reasonably practicable to present them in time due to her Parkinson's and technical difficulties.
- The claimant also brought claims for protected disclosure detriment and disability discrimination, many of which were potentially out of time.
- Employment Judge Harfield declined to strike out any claims on time limit grounds, but issued a deposit order for some parts.
- The judgment dealt only with preliminary issues; no final merits determination was made.
Timeline
-
First alleged protected disclosure
The claimant emailed the VC about disability discrimination and lack of compliance with the public equality duty.
-
Moved to unsuitable accommodation
The claimant was moved to accommodation without accessible toilet and far from colleagues, allegedly in retaliation for her disclosure.
-
Second and third alleged protected disclosures
The claimant reported bullying and a student complaint to the VC and others.
-
Conduct investigation initiated
Peter Clegg set up a conduct investigation into the claimant, leading to a disciplinary process.
-
Formal warning issued
The conduct panel gave the claimant a formal warning.
-
Pay reduced to nil
The claimant's sick pay was reduced to nil after a period of half pay.
-
Dismissal
The claimant was dismissed from her employment.
-
Appeal rejected
The claimant's internal appeal against dismissal was rejected.
-
Claim presented to tribunal
The claimant hand-delivered her ET1 claim form, which was date-stamped 16 December 2020.
-
Judgment on preliminary issues
Employment Judge Harfield declined to strike out any claims on time limit grounds but issued a deposit order.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's unfair dismissal and breach of contract claims were presented in time, and if not, whether to extend the time limit. It also considered whether to strike out other claims, including protected disclosure detriment and disability discrimination, on time limit grounds.
The outcome
The tribunal ruled that the unfair dismissal and breach of contract claims were presented 10 days late, but granted an extension of time. The judge accepted that the claimant's Parkinson's disease, combined with IT issues and anxiety, made it not reasonably practicable to file on time, and she acted reasonably once the appeal outcome was received.
On the other claims, the tribunal declined to strike out any claims on time limit grounds, but issued a deposit order for certain parts of the disability discrimination claim, requiring the claimant to pay a deposit as a condition of continuing those parts.
No compensation was awarded at this stage as the judgment dealt only with preliminary issues.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you have a disability that affects your ability to meet deadlines, gather medical evidence early and explain the impact clearly to the tribunal.
- The tribunal may extend time if you can show it was not reasonably practicable to file on time and you acted promptly once able to do so.
- Be aware that claims for protected disclosure detriment and discrimination have different time limits – generally three months minus one day from the act complained of.
- A deposit order can be issued if a tribunal thinks a claim has little reasonable prospect of success – you may need to pay a sum to continue.
When disability delays justice
This case shows how employment tribunals handle claims that are filed late because of a claimant's disability. The claimant, a university academic with Parkinson's disease, was dismissed in July 2020. She filed her unfair dismissal and breach of contract claims in December 2020 – 10 days after the primary time limit. The tribunal accepted that her Parkinson's, combined with IT problems and anxiety, made it not reasonably practicable to file on time. The judge noted that she had to prioritise her health and struggled with sequencing tasks, which is a known symptom of Parkinson's.
What the university could have done differently
The University of the West of England argued that the claims should be struck out as out of time. However, the tribunal found that the claimant acted reasonably once her internal appeal was rejected in November 2020. The university might have avoided this preliminary battle by engaging more flexibly with the claimant's health condition during the dismissal process. A capability dismissal based on outdated medical evidence – as alleged in other parts of the claim – can be risky if the employer does not consider updated reports.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that time limits are not absolute when a claimant's disability is a factor. Tribunals will look at whether it was 'reasonably practicable' to file on time, and if not, whether the claim was brought within a reasonable further period. Claimants with long-term health conditions should seek legal advice early and document any obstacles they face. For employers, the case highlights the importance of making reasonable adjustments to internal processes, including giving extra time for disabled employees to respond to dismissal decisions.
Similar cases
Care worker's whistleblowing detriment claims dismissed after tribunal rejects late amendments
An employment tribunal dismissed a care worker's claims that he suffered detriments for making protected disclosures, and refused to allow him to add a religion/belief discrimination claim that was out of time.
Former employee's unfair dismissal claim struck out after failing to pay £300 deposit
A tribunal struck out claims of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and detriment for protected disclosures after the claimant failed to pay a £300 deposit order. The unlawful deductions claim was also struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success.
Deposit non-payment leads to strike-out of race discrimination and unfair dismissal claims
A customer service advisor's claims of unfair dismissal and race discrimination were struck out after he failed to pay a £2,000 deposit ordered by the tribunal. The deposit was required because his claims had little reasonable prospect of success.
HR Business Partner dismissed after one month for whistleblowing: £74,540 awarded
An HR Business Partner who raised concerns about a flawed redundancy process was dismissed after just one month. The tribunal awarded £74,540 after striking out the employer's response.