Late Unfair Dismissal Claim Allowed by Employment Tribunal
📌 In brief
An employment tribunal allowed a worker's late unfair dismissal claim because it wasn't practicable for them to file on time. However, they dismissed their claims of race discrimination and harassment against their employer.
⚖️ Legal holding
An employer must consider the reasonableness of a late unfair dismissal claim if it was not practicable for the employee to present it within time limits.
📖 What the law says
This section defines direct discrimination, stating that a person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favorably than A treats or would treat others. It also outlines exceptions for different protected characteristics, including age, disability, and race.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant's unfair dismissal claim was allowed due to reasonable impracticability, while claims of direct race discrimination and harassment were dismissed.
📜 Headnote Official document
The claimant's unfair dismissal claim was allowed due to impracticability in presenting the claim within time limits, while claims of direct race discrimination and harassment were dismissed.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed in Part
Case Number: 3306256/25
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Cambridge Employment Tribunal (by video) On: 17 December 2025 Before: Employment Judge Taft
REPRESENTATION:
Claimant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] JUDGMENT
1. The claim of unfair dismissal was not presented within the applicable time limit, but it was not reasonably practicable to do so. The claim of unfair dismissal was presented within a further reasonable period. The claim of unfair dismissal will therefore proceed.
Approved by: Employment Judge Taft 22 December 2025 Judgment sent to the parties on: 29 December 2025 …………………………………… For the Tribunal:
……………………………………
Case Number: 3306256/25
2
Notes 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. If written reasons are provided they will be placed online. All judgments (apart from judgments under Rule 51) and any written reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online at https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the claimants and respondents. If a Tribunal hearing has been recorded, you may request a transcript of the recording. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, you will have to pay for it. 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 at www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/employment-rules-and-legislation- practice-directions/
Case Number: 3305617/2024 and 3306256/2025 (formerly reform case 6028793/2025)
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant
Respondent C [APPELLANT] v [RESPONDENT] [COMPANY] at: Reading
On: 3,4,5 and 6 February 2026 Before: Employment Judge W Anderson
Appearances For the Claimant: [redacted]
For the Respondent: [redacted]
The claimant’s claims of unfair dismissal, direct race discrimination and harassment are dismissed.
Approved by:
Employment Judge W Anderson
Date: 6 February 2026
Sent to the parties on: 20 April 2026.....
............................................................
For the Tribunal Office .
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.
2
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- Employment Tribunal Holiday Pay Claim Successful in Employment Tribunal Case
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rules on Disability Discrimination and Pay Statements
- Employment Tribunal Employer Must Compensate for Unauthorised Wages, Not Pension Failures
- Employment Tribunal Unfair Dismissal: Reduced Compensation Awarded Due to Higher Earnings
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal: Whistleblowing Claims Rejected, Unfair Dismissal Uphel…
- Employment Tribunal Disability Discrimination Claim Rejected; Holiday Pay Awarded with Costs Or…
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Decision: Disability Discrimination and Reasonable Adju…
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Dismisses Claims for Being Out of Time
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Dismisses Claims Due to Non-Attendance
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rejects Disability Discrimination and Victimisation Com…
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal dismisses unfair dismissal claim in Liverpool
A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- An employer must consider the reasonableness of a late unfair dismissal claim if it was not practicable for the employee to present it within time limits.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- A respondent is entitled to recover costs from a litigant who unreasonably pursues an unsuccessful claim.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The claimant's unfair dismissal claim was allowed to proceed, but their claims of direct race discrimination and harassment were dismissed.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the claimant's unfair dismissal claim could proceed despite being initially out of time, and whether claims of direct race discrimination and harassment were valid.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the unfair dismissal claim could proceed due to reasonable impracticability, but dismissed the claims of direct race discrimination and harassment.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Equality Act 2010 s.13 was applied to the claims of direct race discrimination and harassment.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was whether it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to file the unfair dismissal claim within the time limit.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was partly for and partly against the person who brought the case, allowing the unfair dismissal claim to proceed but dismissing the race discrimination and harassment claims.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation might be able to proceed with an unfair dismissal claim if it was not reasonably practicable to file it within the time limit.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify the evidence or documents that mattered.