Postwoman dismissed over COVID self-isolation: claim out of time
A postwoman with 20 years' service was dismissed for breaking COVID self-isolation rules, but her unfair dismissal claim was rejected because she filed it too late. The tribunal also refused to add a disability discrimination claim.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was summarily dismissed on 23 April 2021 for breaking COVID-19 self-isolation rules.
- The claimant presented her claim form on 8 September 2021 without including the ACAS early conciliation certificate number.
- The claim form was rejected on 29 September 2021 and accepted on 11 October 2021 after the claimant handed in the certificate.
- The claimant ticked the disability discrimination box but provided no narrative about disability in the claim form.
- The claimant withdrew her age discrimination claim but not her disability discrimination claim.
- The tribunal found that the claim form did not contain a disability discrimination complaint and refused the late application to amend.
Timeline
-
Employment started
The claimant began working for Royal Mail Group Ltd as a postwoman.
-
Travel to Nigeria
The claimant travelled to Nigeria in January 2021.
-
Return to UK
The claimant returned to the UK from Nigeria on 6 February 2021.
-
Government text message
The claimant received a UK government text message about self-isolation requirements for non-exempt countries.
-
Returned to work
The claimant went back to work on 8 February 2021, believing Nigeria was exempt from self-isolation rules.
-
Returned from isolation
After self-isolating, the claimant was served a conduct code letter by her manager.
-
Summary dismissal
The claimant was summarily dismissed for breaking COVID-19 self-isolation rules.
-
Early conciliation started
The claimant commenced early conciliation with ACAS.
-
ACAS certificate issued
The claimant obtained the ACAS early conciliation certificate.
-
Claim form presented
The claimant presented her claim form online without including the ACAS certificate number.
-
Claim rejected
The tribunal rejected the claim because it did not contain the ACAS certificate number.
-
Claim accepted
The claimant handed in the ACAS certificate and the claim was accepted, but out of time.
-
Preliminary hearing
The tribunal held an open preliminary hearing to decide jurisdiction and amendment issues.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the unfair dismissal claim was filed within the legal time limit, and whether the claim form already contained a disability discrimination complaint or should be amended to include one.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims for lack of jurisdiction.
- The unfair dismissal complaint was presented on 11 October 2021, more than three months after the dismissal on 23 April 2021. The claimant had the ACAS certificate from 12 August 2021 but failed to include it in her initial claim form on 8 September 2021, causing a rejection and delay. The tribunal held it was reasonably practicable to have presented the claim in time.
- The claim form did not contain a disability discrimination complaint because the claimant ticked the disability box but gave no narrative about disability in the details section. The tribunal refused her late application to amend, as it would prejudice the respondent and was not just and equitable.
- No compensation was awarded as the claims were dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Always include your ACAS early conciliation certificate number when filing a claim – missing it can cause your claim to be rejected and become out of time.
- If you tick a discrimination box on the claim form, you must provide some details about the discrimination in the narrative section, or the tribunal may treat it as not included.
- Time limits for unfair dismissal are strict: you have three months from the effective date of termination, and the clock does not stop while you sort out procedural issues.
- If you need to amend your claim to add a new complaint, do it as early as possible – late amendments are likely to be refused if they cause prejudice to the other side.
A procedural pitfall that cost a 20-year career
This case shows how strict employment tribunal time limits can be, even for long-serving employees. The postwoman was summarily dismissed in April 2021 after returning from Nigeria and going back to work, believing Nigeria was exempt from COVID self-isolation rules. She started ACAS early conciliation in July and got her certificate in August. But when she filed her claim online in September, she accidentally ticked 'No' to having the certificate number because she didn't have it to hand. The claim was rejected, and by the time she handed in the certificate in October, the three-month window from her dismissal had closed.
The tribunal decided it was reasonably practicable for her to have filed on time – she had the certificate weeks before the deadline and simply made a mistake on the form. That mistake proved fatal to her unfair dismissal claim.
The disability discrimination claim that never was
The postwoman also ticked the 'disability' box on the claim form, but wrote nothing about disability in the narrative section. The tribunal held that ticking a box alone does not constitute a complaint – you need to say something about it. Her later attempt to amend the claim to add disability discrimination was refused because it was too late and would have required the respondent to investigate a new issue months after the original deadline.
What this means for claimants
This case is a stark reminder that procedural steps matter as much as the merits of your case. If you are bringing a claim, make sure you have your ACAS certificate number ready when you file, and if you want to allege discrimination, include at least a brief description of what happened. Delays and omissions can shut the door on your claim entirely, no matter how strong your case might be on the facts.
Similar cases
Former employee's unfair dismissal claim dismissed after 40-year delay
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim against Bank of America NA was dismissed as out of time after she presented it nearly 40 years after her employment ended. The tribunal found no reasonable explanation for the delay.
Former employee's claim dismissed as one day late: ADHD and technical issues not enough
A former DHL employee's unfair dismissal claim was thrown out after being filed one day late. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to submit on time, rejecting ADHD and technical difficulties as excuses.
Whistleblowing amendment refused after unfair dismissal claim struck out for insufficient service
A former employee who tried to add whistleblowing and harassment claims months after her unfair dismissal claim was struck out for lack of two years' service. The tribunal refused the amendment due to delay and prejudice to the employer.
Unfair dismissal claim rejected as three days late despite union advice
A former NHS employee's unfair dismissal claim was dismissed after she submitted it three days late. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for her to have filed on time.