Uber driver's unfair dismissal claim thrown out four years after termination
A former Uber driver who waited four years to bring an unfair dismissal claim had it dismissed as out of time. The tribunal ruled it was reasonably practicable for him to have claimed within three months of his engagement ending.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- Mr Kibrom worked as an Uber driver from April 2015 until spring 2019.
- Uber terminated his engagement between March and May 2019.
- He first contacted ACAS for Early Conciliation on 1 April 2023.
- He presented his claim to the tribunal on 24 May 2023.
- The tribunal found that it was reasonably practicable for him to have brought his claim within three months of termination.
- The tribunal dismissed all claims as out of time.
Timeline
-
Started work as Uber driver
Mr Kibrom began working as an Uber driver in April 2015.
-
Engagement ended
Uber ended Mr Kibrom's role, with the precise end date between March and May 2019.
-
Letter from claimant
Mr Kibrom wrote a letter dated 12 October 2019 regarding his termination.
-
Supreme Court judgment on Uber drivers
The Supreme Court confirmed that Uber drivers have worker status, widely publicised.
-
Early Conciliation started
Mr Kibrom contacted ACAS to start Early Conciliation on 1 April 2023.
-
Early Conciliation certificate issued
ACAS issued the Early Conciliation certificate on 3 April 2023.
-
Claim presented to tribunal
Mr Kibrom presented his claim to the employment tribunal on 24 May 2023.
-
Preliminary hearing
The tribunal held a preliminary hearing to decide jurisdiction and dismissed the claim as out of time.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether it could hear claims for unfair dismissal, unauthorised deduction from wages, and holiday pay that were brought more than three months after the employment ended, and whether the delay was excusable.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims as out of time. The key reason was that the former driver did not bring his claim within three months of his engagement ending in spring 2019. He first contacted ACAS in April 2023, nearly four years later. The tribunal found that it was reasonably practicable for him to have claimed earlier, as the legal status of Uber drivers had been widely publicised since 2016 and confirmed by the Supreme Court in 2021. No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employment tribunal claims must usually be brought within three months of the event you are complaining about — waiting even a few weeks can be fatal.
- Ignorance of your legal rights is not usually a good excuse for missing the time limit, especially if the issue has been widely reported.
- If you think you might have a claim, seek legal advice or contact ACAS as soon as possible — do not wait for a solicitor to approach you.
- The time limit for unfair dismissal runs from the effective date of termination, not from when you discover you might have a claim.
This case illustrates a hard truth about employment tribunal claims: the clock starts ticking the day your employment ends, not the day you realise you might have a case. The former Uber driver's engagement ended in spring 2019, but he did not contact ACAS until April 2023 — nearly four years later. By then, the tribunal had no choice but to refuse to hear his complaints.
What went wrong
The driver said he did not know he could bring a claim until a law firm approached him in 2023. But the tribunal noted that the legal status of Uber drivers had been the subject of high-profile litigation since 2015, with a Supreme Court judgment in February 2021 confirming worker status. That publicity meant it was reasonably practicable for the driver to have found out about his rights much earlier. The tribunal also pointed out that he had written a letter about his termination in October 2019, showing he was actively considering the matter at that time.
What Uber London could have done differently
Uber London did not need to do anything differently in this case — the claim was simply too late. However, the case serves as a reminder to employers that time limits are a strict defence. If a claim is brought late, the employer should always check whether it is within the tribunal's discretion to extend time.
Why this matters for similar claims
For anyone considering an employment tribunal claim, the message is clear: act quickly. The three-month time limit is short and rarely extended. Even if you are unsure about your legal rights, you should seek advice promptly. Waiting for a solicitor to contact you, or hoping that a change in the law will help, is unlikely to succeed. The tribunal will expect you to take reasonable steps to find out about your rights, especially if the issue is in the public domain.
Similar cases
Unfair dismissal claim struck out: the importance of time limits after resignation
A hairdresser's unfair dismissal claim was struck out because she presented it too late, despite her premature baby and autism. The tribunal found no reasonable prospects of showing it was not reasonably practicable to claim earlier.
Independent clerk to school appeals panels was a worker, not an employee — claims out of time
A long-serving independent clerk who worked for Royal Borough of Greenwich for 28 years was found to be a worker rather than an employee, meaning her unfair dismissal claim could not proceed. Her remaining claims for holiday pay and expenses were also dismissed as too late.
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.
Dismissed while off sick: unfair dismissal claim thrown out as too late
A former night watchman who waited 10 months to bring an unfair dismissal claim after being sacked while on sick leave has had his case dismissed as out of time. The tribunal refused to extend the deadline, ruling it was reasonably practicable for him to have claimed sooner.