Security guard dismissed for leaving post early: claim thrown out for being 11 days late
A security guard who was dismissed for gross misconduct after leaving his site early had his unfair dismissal claim rejected because he presented it 11 days after the three-month time limit. The tribunal said ignorance of the deadline was not a reasonable excuse.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Security Guard from 1 March 2018 to 6 September 2021.
- On 17 August 2021, the claimant left his site early, leading to allegations of gross misconduct.
- The claimant was dismissed on 6 September 2021 after a disciplinary hearing.
- The claimant appealed the dismissal, but the appeal outcome was delayed until after the time limit expired.
- The claimant presented his unfair dismissal claim on 16 December 2021, 11 days late.
- The tribunal found the claimant's ignorance of the time limit was not objectively reasonable.
Timeline
-
Employment start
Claimant began employment as a Security Guard.
-
Incident
Claimant left site early; discovered by Regional Manager.
-
Suspension
Claimant suspended pending investigation for gross misconduct.
-
Investigation meeting
Claimant attended disciplinary investigation meeting.
-
Dismissal
Claimant dismissed for gross misconduct after disciplinary hearing.
-
Appeal lodged
Claimant appealed dismissal by email.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal hearing conducted by Mr Al Shabaghi; adjourned for further investigations.
-
Investigations concluded
Respondent completed interviews for appeal.
-
Time limit expiry
Primary three-month time limit for unfair dismissal claim expired.
-
ACAS conciliation
Claimant initiated ACAS early conciliation.
-
ACAS certificate
ACAS certificate issued.
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented ET1 claim, 11 days late.
-
Appeal outcome
Respondent sent appeal outcome letter rejecting appeal, but to wrong address.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's unfair dismissal claim was presented within the three-month time limit, and if not, whether it was not reasonably practicable for it to be presented in time.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim in its entirety. The key reason was that the claimant presented his unfair dismissal claim 11 days after the three-month time limit had expired. The tribunal found that the claimant's ignorance of the time limit was not a reasonable excuse, especially as he had been advised by a friend to seek legal advice but did not do so. The claim was therefore out of time and the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it.
No compensation was awarded as the claim was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.
Lessons & takeaways
- The three-month time limit for bringing an unfair dismissal claim is strict, and ignorance of it is rarely a valid excuse.
- If you are dismissed, seek legal advice promptly, as the clock starts ticking from the effective date of termination.
- Delaying a claim while waiting for an appeal outcome does not extend the time limit – you must present your claim within three months regardless.
- Even if you are unrepresented, the tribunal expects you to take reasonable steps to find out about time limits, such as consulting ACAS or a solicitor.
A missed deadline that proved fatal
This case is a stark reminder that employment tribunals take time limits seriously. The claimant, a security guard with three years' service, was dismissed for gross misconduct after leaving his post early and allegedly falsifying records. He believed his dismissal was unfair and lodged an appeal, but the appeal process dragged on. By the time he realised his claim might be late, the three-month window had already closed.
The tribunal acknowledged that the claimant was unaware of the time limit, but found that this ignorance was not reasonable. He had spoken to a friend who suggested he 'might' have a claim, but he did not follow up with ACAS or a solicitor until after the deadline had passed. The tribunal noted that he had the capacity to seek advice and could have done so earlier.
What the respondent did right and wrong
Sentinel Group Security Ltd followed a formal disciplinary process, suspending the claimant, investigating, and holding a hearing before dismissing him. However, the appeal outcome was delayed until after the time limit expired, and the decision letter was sent to the wrong address. While this did not affect the time limit ruling, it highlights how delays in internal processes can inadvertently prejudice employees.
Why this matters for similar claims
For anyone considering an unfair dismissal claim, the key lesson is to act fast. The three-month time limit runs from the effective date of termination, not from the outcome of any appeal. Waiting for an appeal to conclude can be risky. If you are unsure about your rights, contact ACAS early conciliation as soon as possible – it can pause the clock, but only if you start it before the deadline expires.
Similar cases
Unfair dismissal claim struck out: waiting for internal appeal and personal tragedy didn't extend time limit
A 12-year employee who waited until after his internal appeal to bring an unfair dismissal claim was out of time. The tribunal rejected arguments that his wife's stillbirth and his own ignorance of procedure made it not reasonably practicable to claim earlier.
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.
Postal worker's unfair dismissal claim struck out after missing deadline due to union advice
A postal worker who relied on his trade union's incorrect advice about the time limit for bringing an unfair dismissal claim had his case struck out as out of time. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for him to have presented the claim within the three-month window.
33-year consultant haematologist's unfair dismissal claim struck out as out of time
A consultant haematologist with 33 years' service lost his unfair dismissal claim after the tribunal ruled he filed it 89 days late. The claim was struck out because it was reasonably practicable for him to have submitted it on time.