Delaying an unfair dismissal claim to avoid 'rocking the boat': time limit not extended
A former Virgin Atlantic cabin crew member who delayed her unfair dismissal claim by six months to preserve her chance of re-employment from a redundancy holding pool has had her claim dismissed as out of time.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was dismissed by redundancy on 7 January 2021.
- The claimant knew the three-month time limit for bringing an unfair dismissal claim.
- The claimant made a conscious decision not to bring a claim within the time limit to avoid 'rocking the boat' and to preserve her chance of re-employment from the holding pool.
- The claimant presented her claim on 7 October 2021, approximately six months after the expiry of the primary limitation period.
- The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented her claim in time.
Timeline
-
Phase 2 redundancies announced
The respondent announced a second phase of redundancies. All employees made redundant were offered a place in the holding pool.
-
Claimant provisionally selected for redundancy
The claimant was informed she had been provisionally selected for redundancy.
-
Individual consultation meeting
The claimant had her individual consultation meeting and was subsequently given notice of termination with an effective date of 7 January 2021.
-
Appeal outcome
The claimant's appeal against dismissal was partially upheld but the decision to dismiss was not overturned.
-
Effective date of termination
The claimant's employment ended. She entered the holding pool.
-
Trade union legal advice
The claimant received a legal advice summary from her trade union reiterating the time limits for bringing an unfair dismissal claim.
-
Primary limitation period expired
The three-month time limit for presenting an unfair dismissal claim expired. The claimant had decided not to bring a claim.
-
Respondent asked holding pool members to register interest
The respondent asked those in the holding pool to register their intention to return to work, indicating there would be a short online interview.
-
Claimant interviewed for re-employment
The claimant was interviewed for a position but failed to secure a post.
-
Claimant exited holding pool
The claimant was removed from the holding pool after failing to secure re-employment.
-
Acas Early Conciliation started
The claimant made an initial notification to Acas for Early Conciliation.
-
Acas Early Conciliation certificate issued
The Early Conciliation certificate was issued.
-
Claim presented to tribunal
The claimant presented her unfair dismissal claim to the Employment Tribunal.
The legal issue
Whether the claimant's unfair dismissal claim, presented six months after the three-month time limit expired, should be allowed to proceed because it was not reasonably practicable to present it in time.
The outcome
The Employment Tribunal dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal claim for lack of jurisdiction.
The claim was presented approximately six months late. The tribunal found that the claimant knew the time limit and had received legal advice from her trade union reiterating it. She made a conscious decision not to bring a claim in time to avoid 'rocking the boat' and to preserve her chance of re-employment from the holding pool. This was not a valid reason for delay under the test of reasonable practicability.
No compensation was awarded as the claim was dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- The three-month time limit for unfair dismissal claims is strict – a conscious decision to delay, even for a good reason, will not usually extend it.
- If you are in a redundancy holding pool and considering a claim, seek legal advice early and do not assume you can wait until after re-employment attempts.
- The test for extending time in unfair dismissal cases is 'reasonable practicability', which is harder to satisfy than the 'just and equitable' test used in discrimination claims.
- Early Conciliation does not extend the time limit if it is started after the primary three months have already expired.
This case shows the hard edge of the strict time limits that apply to unfair dismissal claims. The claimant, a former cabin crew member for Virgin Atlantic, was made redundant in January 2021 as part of a second phase of redundancies. She was placed in a 'holding pool' – a talent pool designed to facilitate re-employment. She decided not to bring an unfair dismissal claim within the three-month time limit because she did not want to 'rock the boat' and hoped to be re-employed from the pool.
A conscious choice, not an impediment
The tribunal accepted that the claimant knew the time limit. She had received legal advice from her trade union in March 2021 that reiterated the deadline. She chose not to act. When she later failed to secure re-employment and was removed from the holding pool in July 2021, she started Early Conciliation and eventually presented her claim in October 2021 – six months late.
The tribunal applied the test under section 111(2)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996: was it 'not reasonably practicable' to present the claim in time? The answer was no. The claimant faced no impediment – she simply made a strategic decision. The tribunal noted that the test is one of 'reasonable feasibility', not a balancing of interests, and that a conscious decision to delay cannot satisfy it.
What the employer did right
Virgin Atlantic had a clear redundancy process and communicated the holding pool arrangements. The claimant was represented by her trade union and received legal advice. The employer did not mislead her about time limits. The tribunal found that the delay was entirely the claimant's own choice.
Why this matters
For employees, this case is a reminder that the time limit for unfair dismissal claims is unforgiving. Even if you have a good reason to wait – such as hoping for re-employment – the tribunal will not extend time unless it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim earlier. The test is stricter than the 'just and equitable' test used in discrimination claims. If you are considering a claim, act within three months of your dismissal, or seek advice immediately if you think you may have a valid reason for delay.
Similar cases
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 thrown out for being over two months late
A former employee who resigned and then waited until after his grievance appeal to bring an unfair dismissal claim was too late. The tribunal ruled it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim, which was presented over two months after the three-month time limit expired.
Online delivery driver's unfair dismissal claim thrown out for being too late
A Sainsbury's delivery driver who claimed he was unfairly dismissed for discount card misuse had his case dismissed because he presented his claim two months after the deadline.
Constructive dismissal claim thrown out after being filed 12 days late due to solicitor error
A former employee who resigned claiming constructive dismissal had his claim dismissed because it was filed 12 days late, after his solicitors failed to see the ACAS certificate. The tribunal refused to extend the time limit.