Employment Tribunal Time Limits – Why You Can Lose Your Case Before It Even Starts

In employment law, most people focus on what actually happened: whether the dismissal was unfair, whether the employer acted unlawfully, whether there are witnesses or documents.

In practice, however, something much simpler — and much more unforgiving — often decides the outcome.

Not who is right.Not who tells the truth.

👉 But whether you acted in time.

It is entirely possible to have a strong case in the Employment Tribunal and still lose it at the very first stage — simply because the claim was brought too late.

📌 A short deadline that decides everything

In most employment claims, the rule is:

👉 3 months minus 1 day from the relevant act

This applies to claims such as:

• unfair dismissal

• unlawful deductions from wages

• breach of contract

So if something happened on 1 January, the deadline would normally be 31 March

On the surface, that seems straightforward.

But very quickly a critical question arises:

👉 what exactly is “the relevant act”?

⚠️ The Tribunal will not “forgive” delay

Many people assume that if their case is strong, the Tribunal will still consider it. That is not how the system works.

If a claim is presented outside the time limit, the Tribunal may simply reject it without considering the merits.

There will be no review of evidence.No witnesses.No assessment of fairness.

In many cases, the Tribunal will not even have jurisdiction to hear the claim if it is out of time

This is where a large number of cases are effectively lost.

⚖️ What about discrimination claims (Equality Act 2010)?

This is where things become more nuanced — and often misunderstood.

Discrimination claims under the Equality Act are also subject to:

👉 3 months minus 1 day

However, the way time is assessed is different in two important respects.

First, discrimination cases often involve what is known as a “continuing act”.

This means that where there is an ongoing pattern of behaviour (for example, repeated discriminatory treatment or harassment), the time limit may run from the last act in the series, rather than the first.

Second — and crucially — the Tribunal has a broader discretion.

It may allow a claim to proceed out of time if it considers it:

👉 “just and equitable” to do so

This is a significantly wider test than in unfair dismissal cases.

However, in practice, it should not be relied upon. It is discretionary, and outcomes are often unpredictable.

🧠 Why this makes such a difference

In unfair dismissal claims, the key question is usually whether it was:

👉 “reasonably practicable” to bring the claim in time

This is a narrow test and often difficult to satisfy.

In discrimination claims, by contrast, the Tribunal can take a broader view of the circumstances, including:

• what the claimant knew and when

• whether there was confusion about their position

• whether the employer contributed to that confusion

• the overall fairness of allowing the claim to proceed

That flexibility can help — but it also introduces uncertainty.

🔍 A real example from practice

In one of my recent cases, the issue of time limits became central.

The employer argued that the claimant had been dismissed on 14 April 2025, and that the claim had therefore been brought significantly out of time

If that date had been correct, the claim would indeed have been struck out.

However, the factual picture told a different story.

There was no clear evidence that the dismissal had ever been properly communicated to the claimant. The parties continued to communicate after April, payslips were still being issued, and the employer’s conduct suggested that the employment relationship had not in fact been brought to an end at that time.

It was only several months later that the employer first asserted that the claimant had been dismissed back in April.

💥 The moment that changed everything

In the meantime, the claimant — left without clarity and without income — resigned on 18 August 2025.

That date became crucial.

If there had been no effective earlier dismissal, then the resignation was the point at which the employment relationship actually ended

That, in turn, meant that the time limit ran from August, not April.

The result was straightforward:

👉 the claim was in time

Notably, the employer ultimately withdrew its limitation argument and accepted that the relevant date was the resignation.

🧩 Why this matters — especially in discrimination cases

This example illustrates how complex limitation issues can become.

It is not simply a matter of counting three months. It requires identifying:

• when the employment actually ended

• whether a dismissal was effectively communicated

• whether there was an ongoing course of conduct

In discrimination claims, this becomes even more important, because arguments around a “continuing act” or the Tribunal’s discretion can significantly affect the outcome.

A case that appears to be out of time at first glance may, on proper analysis, still be viable.

⏸️ The role of ACAS Early Conciliation

ACAS Early Conciliation often adds another layer of confusion.

It is true that the process pauses the limitation clock, but it does not reset it

If the starting point has been incorrectly identified, ACAS will not fix the problem.

This is one of the most common mistakes in practice.

🚨 The real issue — incorrect assumptions

In many cases, the problem is not a lack of legal knowledge, but a series of understandable assumptions.

People wait to see what their employer will do.They wait for the outcome of an appeal.They hope the situation will resolve itself.

All the while, time continues to run.

And by the time advice is sought, it may already be too late.

Conclusion

The Employment Tribunal system can provide meaningful protection for employees.

But it is also highly procedural and strictly governed by time limits.

It is entirely possible to have:

• a strong claim

• clear evidence

• obvious unfairness

… and still lose the case because it was brought too late.

In discrimination cases, the position can be more flexible — but also more complex.

👉 The key point is this:time limits are not a formality.

👉 They are often the most important issue in the entire case.

Join the mailing list to receive legal updates: https://www.martainkin.co.uk/legal-updates