Self-employed sales director's unfair dismissal claim dismissed as out of time
A sales director who provided services as a self-employed worker was dismissed by telephone in July 2020. The tribunal ruled his unfair dismissal claim was presented too late and he was not an employee.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #summary-dismissal
- #self-employed-worker
- #effective-date-of-termination
- #acas-early-conciliation
- #pandemic
Key facts
- The claimant provided services to the respondent from 1 May 2015 until July 2020.
- The claimant was described as a self-employed services provider in an email of 1 May 2015.
- The claimant was summarily dismissed by a telephone call from Mr Jezia on 7 July 2020.
- The claimant presented his claim to the tribunal on 4 December 2020.
- The tribunal found the claim was presented outside the three-month time limit.
- The tribunal also found the claimant was a worker but not an employee.
Timeline
-
Claimant started providing services
The claimant began providing services to the respondent, described as a self-employed services provider.
-
Respondent closed due to pandemic
The respondent company closed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
-
Claimant raised commission concern
The claimant sent a text message to Mr Jezia about payment of his commission.
-
Client complaint about dispensers
HW Catering sent an email complaining about an email from the respondent regarding dispensers.
-
Further client complaint
HW Catering sent another email chasing a response and complaining about the dispensers.
-
Dismissal telephone conversation
Mr Jezia called the claimant and said 'You created a monster, don't come back, you no longer work for Bayleaf.' The tribunal found this was the effective date of termination.
-
ACAS early conciliation started
ACAS received notification of early conciliation from the claimant.
-
ACAS early conciliation certificate issued
ACAS issued the early conciliation certificate by email.
-
Claim presented to tribunal
The claimant commenced proceedings by presenting the ET1 claim form.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's unfair dismissal claim was brought within the statutory time limit, which depends on the effective date of termination and whether it was reasonably practicable to present the claim earlier.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim because it was presented too late. The effective date of termination was 7 July 2020, when the claimant was told by telephone not to return. The claim was presented on 4 December 2020, beyond the three-month limit (extended for early conciliation). The tribunal also found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time, and that the claimant was a worker but not an employee, meaning he could not bring an unfair dismissal claim anyway.
No compensation was awarded as the claim was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you believe you have been dismissed, act quickly: the time limit for unfair dismissal claims is three months from the effective date of termination, including any ACAS early conciliation period.
- The effective date of termination is usually the date you are told you are dismissed, not a later date you might expect to finish work.
- Self-employed individuals may not have the right to claim unfair dismissal, even if they provide services regularly to one company.
- It is important to keep clear records of the date and content of any dismissal conversation, as this can determine whether your claim is in time.
This case shows how critical timing is in employment claims. The sales director provided services to Bayleaf Janitorial Supplies Limited from 2015, but was described as self-employed. On 7 July 2020, he received a telephone call from the director telling him not to come back. He presented his claim to the tribunal on 4 December 2020, arguing that his effective date of termination was 31 July 2020, when he expected to finish work.
The tribunal disagreed. It found the effective date of termination was 7 July 2020, the date of the telephone call. The three-month time limit (extended by ACAS early conciliation) expired on 11 November 2020, so the claim was presented late. The tribunal also rejected the argument that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time, noting the claimant had access to legal advice and could have acted sooner.
What the respondent could have done differently
Bayleaf Janitorial Supplies Limited could have avoided this dispute by providing a clear written dismissal letter stating the effective date of termination. However, because the claim was time-barred, the tribunal did not need to consider whether the dismissal was fair or whether the claimant was an employee.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that the clock starts ticking from the moment you are told you are dismissed, not from when you expect to leave. It also highlights the importance of employment status: even if the claimant had been in time, he was found to be a worker, not an employee, and therefore could not bring an unfair dismissal claim. Anyone providing services on a self-employed basis should be aware that they may have limited employment rights.
Similar cases
Dismissed by email: a day's delay that cost the claim
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim was thrown out because he contacted ACAS two days after the three-month deadline, even though he read his dismissal email the day after it was sent.
Founder and CTO summarily dismissed on a Teams call: effective date of termination in dispute
A tribunal found that a founder and chief technology officer was summarily dismissed during a Teams call, despite the company later claiming otherwise. The preliminary ruling on the effective date of termination has implications for similar disputes.
Zero-hours driver unfairly dismissed after being told 'no further work'
A delivery driver on a zero-hours contract was unfairly dismissed when his employer summarily ended his work without following any disciplinary process. The tribunal awarded £6,675.
Dismissed over COVID-19 vaccination: email notification timing saves unfair dismissal claim
A part-time Fundraising Assistant was dismissed for not being vaccinated against COVID-19, but a tribunal ruled her unfair dismissal claim was in time because she only read the dismissal letter on 23 December 2021, not when it was first sent.