Pharmacist's unfair dismissal claim struck out as over three years late
A tribunal struck out a pharmacist's claim of automatic unfair dismissal because it was presented more than three years after her dismissal, far beyond the three-month time limit.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a pharmacist from 3 January 2019 until dismissal on 16 April 2019.
- The claimant presented her claim of automatic unfair dismissal on 19 and 30 December 2022, over three years after the effective date of termination.
- The claimant was aware of the ability to complain to the General Pharmaceutical Council at the time of dismissal but did not know about Employment Tribunal claims until April 2021.
- The claimant had previously brought two other claims against the respondent which were struck out or rejected.
- The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present her claim within the three-month time limit.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as a pharmacist with the respondent.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed with effect from this date, allegedly for misconduct.
-
Time limit expiry
Three-month deadline for presenting an unfair dismissal claim expired.
-
First advice about ET
Claimant was advised by Citizens Advice about the possibility of bringing an Employment Tribunal claim.
-
Further advice from NPA
National Pharmaceutical Association reiterated the right to bring an ET claim.
-
Earlier claim struck out
One of the claimant's earlier claims against the respondent was struck out.
-
Earlier claim rejected
Another earlier claim was rejected by the tribunal.
-
Current claim presented
Claimant presented her claim of automatic unfair dismissal.
-
Second claim presented
Claimant presented a further claim (same matter).
-
Hearing and judgment
Employment Judge Povey heard the case and struck out the claim as out of time.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether to extend the time limit for an unfair dismissal claim that was presented over three years after the dismissal, based on whether it was 'not reasonably practicable' to present it sooner.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out the claim as out of time.
- The claimant was dismissed on 16 April 2019 but did not present her claim until December 2022.
- She argued she was unaware of Employment Tribunal claims until April 2021, but the tribunal noted she had previously brought other claims against the same employer.
- The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for her to have presented her claim within three months of dismissal, so no extension was allowed.
Lessons & takeaways
- The time limit for unfair dismissal claims is three months from the effective date of termination – missing it by even a day can be fatal.
- Ignorance of the right to claim is not usually a valid reason for delay, especially if you could have found out with reasonable diligence.
- Bringing other claims against the same employer does not extend the time limit for a separate unfair dismissal claim.
A claim that came too late
A pharmacist who was dismissed after just three months' service saw her claim of automatic unfair dismissal struck out because she presented it over three years after her employment ended. The case is a stark reminder of the strict time limits that apply to Employment Tribunal claims.
The claimant was dismissed by L. Rowlands & Company (Retail) Limited on 16 April 2019. She believed her dismissal was linked to protected disclosures she had made, which would make it automatically unfair. However, she did not present her claim to the tribunal until 19 and 30 December 2022 – more than three years after the three-month deadline had expired.
Why the tribunal refused to extend time
The law allows a claim to be accepted late only if it was 'not reasonably practicable' to present it within the initial three-month period. The claimant argued that she did not know about Employment Tribunal claims until April 2021, when Citizens Advice told her about them. But the tribunal noted that she had previously brought two other claims against the same employer, one of which was struck out in May 2022 and another rejected in September 2022. This showed she was aware of the tribunal process well before December 2022.
The judge found that it was reasonably practicable for her to have presented her unfair dismissal claim within three months of her dismissal. She could have sought advice earlier, and her delay was not justified by any ongoing internal procedures or other factors. As a result, the claim was struck out.
What this means for similar claims
This case highlights how strictly tribunals apply the three-month time limit. Even a claim that might have merit on the facts can be thrown out if it is presented too late. Employees who believe they have been unfairly dismissed should seek legal advice promptly and not assume that raising a grievance or pursuing other complaints will pause the clock. The time limit runs from the effective date of termination, and missing it usually means losing the right to claim altogether.
Similar cases
Cleaning operative's unfair dismissal claims dismissed as out of time
A cleaning operative who filed two unfair dismissal claims after the three-month deadline has had both claims dismissed. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for him to have filed in time.
Unfair dismissal claim struck out after email submission ignored automatic reply
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim was struck out as out of time after she emailed her ET1 form and failed to read the tribunal's automatic reply stating that claims cannot be accepted by email.
Constructive dismissal claim allowed to proceed despite being five days late
An estate agency employee who mistakenly emailed her claim form to ACAS instead of the tribunal has been given permission to proceed with her constructive unfair dismissal claim, even though it arrived five days after the deadline.
Amendment refused: late addition of protected disclosure claims struck out
A security officer who tried to add two new protected disclosures to his unfair dismissal claim 16 months after presenting his claim was refused by the tribunal, which found it was reasonably practicable to have included them earlier.