Wrong dismissal date in claim form: tribunal dismisses unfair dismissal claim
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim was dismissed after a full merits hearing, but a preliminary hearing over a mistaken dismissal date nearly cost him £850 in wasted costs.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #time-limits
- #effective-date-of-dismissal
- #preliminary-hearing
- #costs-reserved
Key facts
- The claimant's employment ended on 5 July 2022, not 4 May 2022 as originally stated.
- The claim was filed on 31 October 2022, which was within three months of the actual dismissal date.
- The preliminary hearing on 15 June 2023 was listed to determine if the claim was out of time.
- The claimant produced a dismissal letter dated 5 July 2022 at the preliminary hearing.
- The respondent sought costs of £850 for the wasted preliminary hearing, which were reserved.
- At the full merits hearing on 21 and 22 September 2023, the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.
Timeline
-
Dismissal
The claimant was dismissed by letter dated 5 July 2022.
-
ACAS Early Conciliation
The claimant entered into ACAS Early Conciliation.
-
Claim form filed
The claimant filed his claim form, incorrectly stating his employment ended on 4 May 2022.
-
Preliminary hearing
Employment Judge Postle held a preliminary hearing to determine if the claim was out of time. The claimant produced the correct dismissal letter, showing the claim was in time. Costs were reserved.
-
Full merits hearing (day 1)
The full merits hearing began before Employment Judge Cowen at Cambridge Tribunal.
-
Full merits hearing (day 2) and judgment
The hearing concluded and judgment was given, dismissing the unfair dismissal claim and the claim against the second respondent.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's unfair dismissal claim was filed in time and, if so, whether the dismissal was unfair under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim against Norse Commercial Limited and also dismissed the claim against the second respondent, Waveney Norse Limited.
The key reason for the dismissal was that the tribunal found the dismissal was fair under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
No compensation was awarded as the claim was dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Always check the exact date your employment ended before filing a claim – a mistake can lead to a costly preliminary hearing.
- If you realise you made an error in your claim form, inform the tribunal and the respondent as soon as possible to avoid wasted costs.
- Representing yourself can be risky – even a simple date error can derail your case and lead to costs orders.
- Tribunals can reserve costs decisions until after the full hearing, so a preliminary mistake may still affect you later.
This case shows how a simple administrative error can complicate an employment claim. The former employee incorrectly stated his dismissal date as 4 May 2022 when it was actually 5 July 2022. That mistake triggered a preliminary hearing to decide whether the claim was out of time – a hearing that could have been avoided if the correct date had been given from the start.
At the preliminary hearing, the claimant produced the correct dismissal letter, proving the claim was in time. But the respondent had already spent money preparing for the hearing and sought costs of £850. The tribunal reserved that decision until after the full merits hearing, where the unfair dismissal claim was ultimately dismissed.
What the respondent could have done differently
Norse Commercial Limited could have checked the dismissal date earlier, but the onus was on the claimant to provide accurate information. The respondent's counsel acted appropriately by flagging the error and seeking costs for the wasted hearing.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that accuracy in claim forms is crucial. Even a small mistake can lead to additional hearings and potential cost liability. For employees considering a claim, double-checking dates and seeking advice before filing can save time, money, and stress. For employers, it shows the importance of clear dismissal letters and prompt responses to procedural errors.
Similar cases
19-year employee's claims dismissed as out of time despite disabilities
A bureau operator with 19 years' service had his claims for breach of contract and discrimination thrown out because they were lodged over four years after his dismissal.
Harassment claim against individual manager allowed to proceed late
A former employee's harassment and victimisation claims against her employer were deemed in time if there was conduct over a period, but time was extended for a harassment claim against the individual manager.
Partial disability win for healthcare assistant: premature menopause not a disability at work
A tribunal ruled that a healthcare assistant's left shoulder, lower back and wrist impairments were disabilities, but her premature menopause was not because it only affected her sexual life, not her professional life.
Former employee with severe depression granted adjournment in sexual harassment claim
A tribunal has adjourned a preliminary hearing on time limits for a sexual harassment claim after the claimant's representative said she was too unwell to proceed. The judge found the risk of injustice to the claimant outweighed the delay to Ocado.