Employment Tribunal Dismisses Claims for Being Out of Time
📌 In brief
An employment tribunal dismissed a claimant's case for breach of contract, redundancy payment and holiday pay because the claims were submitted after the legal deadline had passed. The court ruled that there were no circumstances preventing the timely submission of these claims.
⚖️ Legal holding
A claim must be brought within the statutory limitation period unless it is not reasonably practicable to do so.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant's claims for breach of contract, redundancy payment and holiday pay were dismissed as they were presented out of time.
📜 Headnote Official document
The claimant's claims for breach of contract, statutory redundancy and unauthorised deduction from wages (holiday pay) were dismissed as they were presented out of the statutory limitation period. The Employment Tribunal found that it was reasonably practicable to present the claims in time.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Dismissed
Case Numbers: 3202147/2024 3202148/2024
1 of 2
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS FINAL HEARING
Claimants:
[redacted]
(2) Mrs [NAME]
Respondents: [redacted]
(2) Secretary of State for Business and Trade
Heard at:
East London Hearing Centre (by CVP)
On:
Friday 13 March 2026
Before:
Employment Judge S Shore
Appearances
For the claimants:
[redacted] For the 1st respondent: [redacted] For the 2nd Respondent: [redacted]
1. These summary reasons were requested in writing by the claimants on 2 April 2026 in respect of a Judgment sent to the parties on 20 March 2026.
2. The Judgment dismissed the claimants’ claims for breach of contract (notice pay), a statutory redundancy payment, and unauthorised deduction from wages (holiday pay). The claims were dismissed on the ground that they were presented out of time, in circumstances where it was reasonably practicable to have presented them in time.
3. The claimants were directors and shareholders of the [COMPANY], which subsequently entered [NAME]’ voluntary liquidation. Their employment terminated in circumstances which they characterised as redundancy. Claims were brought against both respondents.
Case Numbers: 3202147/2024 3202148/2024
2 of 2
4. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction depended upon whether the claims were presented within the relevant statutory time limits or, if not, whether the claimants established that it was not reasonably practicable to present them in time.
5. The Tribunal considered the statutory limitation periods applicable to each claim and found that all claims were presented outside the primary limitation periods.
6. The Tribunal then considered whether the claimants had shown that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claims in time. That test requires more than mistake, ignorance, or delay: it requires circumstances which made timely presentation impracticable.
7. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the claimants met that test. The evidence showed that they were aware, or ought reasonably to have been aware, of the factual basis of their claims and of the relevant time limits within the applicable periods.
8. The Tribunal did not accept that insolvency proceedings, dealings with third parties, or uncertainty as to the potential liability of the Secretary of State prevented timely presentation of the claims.
9. The Tribunal accordingly found that it was reasonably practicable for the claims to have been presented in time and that the statutory conditions for extending time were not satisfied.
10. The Tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to determine the substantive claims, all of which were dismissed.
Approved by: Employment Judge Shore Dated: 28 April 2026
Summary Reasons These summary reasons were given pursuant to Rule 60 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. Full written reasons will not be given unless requested by any party by a written request received by the Tribunal within 14 days of the sending of these summary reasons.
Case Numbers: 3202147/2024 3202148/2024
1 of 2
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS FINAL HEARING
Claimants: [redacted]
(2) Mrs [NAME]
Respondents: [redacted]
(2) Secretary of State for Business and Trade
Heard at: East London Hearing Centre (by CVP)
On: Friday 13 March 2026
Before: Employment Judge S Shore
Representation
For the claimants:
[redacted] For the 1st respondent: [redacted] For the 2nd respondent: [redacted]
JUDGMENT
Breach of Contract 1. The claimants’ claims for breach of contract (failure to pay notice pay) were presented out of time when it was reasonably practicable to have presented them in time and are dismissed. Redundancy 2. The claimants’ claims for a statutory redundancy payment were presented out of time when it was reasonably practicable to have presented them in time and are dismissed.
Case Numbers: 3202147/2024 3202148/2024
2 of 2
Unauthorised Deduction from Wages (Holiday Pay) 3. The claimants’ claim of unauthorised deduction from wages (outstanding holiday pay) were presented out of time when it was reasonably practicable to have presented them in time and are dismissed.
Approved by: Employment Judge S Shore Dated: 13 March 2026
Note Reasons for the judgment having been given orally at the hearing, written reasons will not be provided unless a request was made by either party at the hearing or a written request is presented by either party within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision.
Recording and Transcription Please note that if a Tribunal hearing has been recorded you may request a transcript of the recording, for which a charge may be payable. If a transcript is produced it will not include any oral judgment or reasons given at the hearing. The transcript will not be checked, approved or verified by a judge. There is more information in the joint Presidential Practice Direction on the Recording and Transcription of Hearings, and accompanying Guidance, which can be found here: https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/employment-rules-and-legislation- practice-directions/
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- Employment Tribunal Unfair Dismissal Claim Rejected by Employment Tribunal
- Employment Tribunal Unfair Dismissal Claim Rejected by Employment Tribunal
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rejects Disability Discrimination Claims Against Police
- Employment Tribunal Late Filing Costs Claimant: Unfair & Wrongful Dismissal Claims Rejected
- Employment Tribunal Claimant's Employment Claims Dismissed by Employment Judge Lancaster
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal: Claimants Not Found to Be Employees
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rejects Worker’s Unfair Dismissal Claims
A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
❌ Tends to be rejected
- {'Employers are generally allowed to dismiss employees on substantial grounds, even if those grounds are later exonerated by a professional body.': 'An employer is not required to make reasonable adjustments or avoid unfavourable treatment arising from a disability if such actions are not well-founded under the Equality Act 2010.', "A claim for unfair or wrongful dismissal must be presented within the applicable time limits set by law, with no exceptions unless it's not reasonably practicable to do so.": 'An employer is not liable for automatically unfair dismissal if the grounds do not meet the statutory criteria set out in the Employment Rights Act 1996.', 'A joint director and shareholder is not considered an employee or worker under the Employment Rights Act 1996 for the purposes of claiming wages, redundancy, or other employment benefits.': 'An employer may dismiss an employee summarily if they act in bad faith and undermine trust and confidence between them.'}
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The claimant's claims for breach of contract, redundancy payment and holiday pay were dismissed as they were presented out of time.
Who was involved?
A claimant who brought employment-related claims against their former employer and the Secretary of State for Business and Trade.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the claims were dismissed because they were presented out of time and it was reasonably practicable to present them in time.
Which laws or rules were applied?
No specific laws or rules were cited as applicable in this decision.
What argument mattered most?
The court found that the claimant failed to show that it was not reasonably practicable to submit their claims within the statutory time limit.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
Against the claimant, as all claims were dismissed.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure that their employment-related claims are submitted within the statutory time limit to avoid dismissal.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The court considered whether it was reasonably practicable to submit the claims on time, based on the circumstances known to the claimant.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, decisions from an Employment Tribunal can typically be appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is highly recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving employment law claims.