Senior investment professional's unfair dismissal claim dismissed as 47 days late despite depression
A tribunal has thrown out an unfair dismissal claim because it was presented 47 days late, finding that the claimant's depression did not make it impracticable to file on time given her ongoing business activities.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #out-of-time
- #illness
- #psychiatric-evidence
- #family-court-proceedings
- #business-activities
Key facts
- The claimant was dismissed on 23 September 2021.
- The primary time limit for presenting claims expired on 2 February 2022.
- The claim form was presented on 21 March 2022, 47 days late.
- The claimant suffered from depression and anxiety during the limitation period.
- The claimant continued to engage in business activities and client meetings during the period.
- The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present her claim on time.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working for the respondent.
-
Dismissal notified
Claimant was dismissed with immediate effect but agreed to work notice period.
-
ACAS contacted
Claimant's solicitors contacted ACAS for early conciliation.
-
Employment terminated
Effective date of termination.
-
First psychiatrist consultation
Claimant saw Professor Libby, who advised against major decisions.
-
Client meeting
Claimant attended respondent's offices to meet a potential client.
-
ACAS certificate issued
Early conciliation concluded.
-
Geneva trip
Claimant travelled to Geneva for client introductions.
-
Psychiatrist appointment
Claimant reported feeling better and able to deal with lawyers and papers.
-
Primary time limit expired
Deadline for presenting claims, taking into account ACAS extension.
-
Final psychiatrist appointment
Claimant was prescribed new medication; Professor Libby noted improvement.
-
Claim presented
Claim form submitted to the tribunal, 47 days late.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's mental health condition made it 'not reasonably practicable' for her to file her unfair dismissal claim within the three-month time limit, and if so, whether she filed within a reasonable period after that.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims (unfair dismissal, detriment, and breach of contract) because they were presented out of time.
- The primary time limit expired on 2 February 2022, but the claim was not filed until 21 March 2022 – 47 days late.
- The claimant argued that her severe depression prevented her from engaging with legal proceedings, relying on her psychiatrist's advice.
- However, the tribunal noted that during the limitation period the claimant:
- Attended client meetings and travelled to Geneva for business introductions.
- Resolved complex family court proceedings.
- Was able to communicate with solicitors and deal with paperwork.
- The tribunal concluded it was reasonably practicable for her to have filed on time, and she did not present the claim within a further reasonable period.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you have a mental health condition, gather medical evidence specifically addressing your ability to bring a tribunal claim – general advice to avoid major decisions may not be enough.
- Continuing to work, attend meetings, or handle other legal matters during the limitation period will be used against you to show you could have filed on time.
- The 'not reasonably practicable' test is strict: you must show it was impossible or very difficult to file, not just that you were unwell.
- Act quickly after the condition improves – the tribunal will expect you to file within a short 'further reasonable period' once you are able.
- Keep records of all medical appointments and advice, and ensure your solicitors are aware of any time limits well in advance.
When illness isn't enough to excuse a late claim
This case shows how difficult it is to persuade a tribunal to accept a late unfair dismissal claim, even when the claimant has a diagnosed mental health condition. The claimant, a senior investment professional with three years' service, was dismissed in September 2021. She suffered from depression and anxiety, and her psychiatrist advised her not to make major decisions. But the tribunal found that her ongoing business activities – including client meetings, a trip to Geneva, and handling family court proceedings – showed she was capable of filing her claim on time.
What the employer did right
CBH Wealth UK Ltd did not contest the merits of the claim; instead, they focused on the time limit. By highlighting the claimant's continued professional and personal engagements, they successfully argued that it was reasonably practicable for her to have presented her claim within the three-month window. The tribunal agreed, noting that the claimant had even attended a client meeting at the respondent's offices after her dismissal.
Why this matters for similar claims
The 'not reasonably practicable' test is one of the hardest hurdles in employment law. This case reinforces that tribunals will look at the claimant's actual behaviour, not just their medical diagnosis. If you are bringing a claim and have a health issue, you must show that the condition genuinely prevented you from filing – and that you filed as soon as you were able. Continuing to work or handle other legal matters will almost certainly undermine that argument.
Similar cases
Agency worker's multiple claims struck out: no jurisdiction and out of time
An agency worker who worked for less than two years had his unfair dismissal, unpaid wages, and breach of contract claims dismissed by the tribunal, along with human exploitation allegations which the tribunal had no power to hear.
Healthcare assistant's whistleblowing claim thrown out for being over two years late
A healthcare assistant who waited over two years to bring a whistleblowing and discrimination claim after his dismissal had his case dismissed as out of time. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to have presented the claim within the statutory time limit.
Race discrimination claim dismissed as out of time: a lesson in tribunal deadlines
A Branch Care Manager's claim for direct race discrimination and victimisation was dismissed because she presented it 28 days late. The tribunal refused to extend time, finding no just and equitable reason.
Claim dismissed after employee prioritised son's hospitalisation over tribunal deadline
A former employee's breach of contract claim against Away Resorts Limited was struck out as out of time. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for him to present the claim on time, despite his son's hospitalisation and home flooding.