Unfair dismissal claim rejected for failing to obtain ACAS early conciliation number
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim was dismissed after he failed to obtain an ACAS early conciliation number before presenting his claim, and the tribunal refused to extend time.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #acas-early-conciliation
- #rejection-of-claim
- #time-limitation
- #re-presentation
- #procedural-issue
Key facts
- The claimant's effective date of termination was 23 May 2022.
- The claimant presented an ET1 on 22 August 2022 without an ACAS early conciliation number.
- The claim was rejected on 1 September 2022 for non-compliance with ACAS requirements.
- The claimant obtained an ACAS certificate on 14 September 2022 but did not re-present the claim.
- The claimant delayed 11 days after rejection before contacting ACAS.
Timeline
-
Effective date of termination
The claimant's employment ended on this date.
-
Claim presented without ACAS number
The claimant submitted an ET1 form without an ACAS early conciliation number, ticking a box for interim relief which did not apply.
-
Claim rejected
The Tribunal rejected the claim due to lack of ACAS number and invalid reason for omission.
-
Claimant entered ACAS early conciliation
The claimant belatedly contacted ACAS, 11 days after rejection.
-
ACAS certificate issued
An ACAS early conciliation certificate was issued, which the claimant forwarded to the Tribunal.
-
Claim wrongly accepted by Tribunal
Despite earlier rejection, the Tribunal accepted the claim and invited the respondent to respond.
-
Preliminary hearing
The Tribunal heard the claimant's application for reconsideration and the respondent's strike-out application.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's unfair dismissal claim was validly presented given the failure to provide an ACAS early conciliation number, and if not, whether time should be extended for late presentation.
The outcome
The tribunal decided that the claim was not validly presented because the claimant did not have an ACAS early conciliation certificate when he first submitted his ET1 form. Although he later obtained a certificate and sent it to the tribunal, he did not re-present the claim as required by the rules. The tribunal also refused to extend time because the claimant had not shown it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim on time.
- The claimant's effective date of termination was 23 May 2022.
- He presented his claim on 22 August 2022 without an ACAS number.
- The claim was rejected on 1 September 2022.
- He obtained an ACAS certificate on 14 September 2022 but did not re-present the claim.
- The tribunal found no grounds to extend time.
Lessons & takeaways
- Always obtain an ACAS early conciliation certificate before presenting an employment tribunal claim, even if you think your case is urgent.
- If your claim is rejected for a procedural error, you must re-present it properly – simply sending the missing information is not enough.
- Time limits for unfair dismissal claims are strict; if you miss the deadline, you must show it was not reasonably practicable to present on time.
- Seek legal advice early to avoid simple procedural mistakes that can cost you your case.
A procedural misstep that proved fatal
This case shows how a seemingly small procedural error can derail an employment tribunal claim entirely. The former employee, who had been dismissed on 23 May 2022, presented his unfair dismissal claim on 22 August 2022 – within the three-month time limit. However, he failed to include an ACAS early conciliation number on his ET1 form. Instead, he ticked a box stating that his claim included an application for interim relief, which it did not. The tribunal rejected the claim on 1 September 2022.
What went wrong
The claimant then belatedly entered ACAS early conciliation on 12 September 2022 and obtained a certificate on 14 September 2022, which he forwarded to the tribunal. However, he did not re-present his claim – that is, submit a fresh ET1 form with the ACAS number. The tribunal had wrongly accepted the claim on 26 September 2022, but the respondent challenged its jurisdiction. At the preliminary hearing, the tribunal confirmed the original rejection. The Employment Appeal Tribunal case of Pryce v Baxterstorey Ltd made clear that simply emailing the certificate does not amount to re-presentation; a fresh ET1 is required.
Why the result matters
The tribunal also refused to extend time for late presentation. The claimant had delayed 11 days after the rejection before contacting ACAS, and he did not provide a good reason for failing to present his claim on time. The burden was on him to show it was not reasonably practicable to present within the original three-month period, and he did not meet that burden. This case is a stark reminder that employment tribunal claims have strict procedural requirements, and failing to comply – even with a genuine mistake – can be fatal. The claimant was unrepresented, which may have contributed to the error, but the tribunal's role is to apply the law, not to remedy procedural shortcomings.
Similar cases
Race discrimination claim dismissed after social worker missed time limit
An experienced social worker's race discrimination and constructive dismissal claims against Devon County Council were dismissed because she presented her claim too late, and the tribunal refused to extend time.
Late claim for constructive dismissal: tribunal loses jurisdiction
A former employee of Greggs plc who resigned after grievances were not upheld had her unfair dismissal claim dismissed because she presented it 26 days after the three-month time limit.
Epilepsy discrimination claims dismissed as out of time: a lesson in tribunal deadlines
A fraud consultant with epilepsy lost his disability discrimination and constructive dismissal claims against Lloyds Bank because he filed them too late. The tribunal also found the claims lacked merit.
Unfair dismissal claim struck out for being 12 days late
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim was dismissed because she presented it 12 days after the three-month deadline. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for her to have claimed on time.