Extending time to bring an unfair dismissal claim 




The tribunal has a discretion to extend the time limit for submitting a claim for unfair dismissal if it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time (section 111(2), ERA 96). This test is strictly applied and extensions of time are rare. 




In general, ignorance of a time limit is not a valid reason for extending time. 




In a claim for unfair dismissal, the fact that a claim is late because of wrong or incomplete legal advice by a solicitor is never accepted by the tribunal as a good excuse (Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances [1973] IRLR 379, Tesco Stores Limited v Kayani [2017] UKEAT/0128/16/DM). This is the case even if the solicitor was not asked to advise the claimant whether to bring a tribunal claim, or gave the advice in a free consultation (T Mobile (UK) Limited v Singleton [2011] UKEAT/0410/10). The tribunal’s view is that where solicitors have been negligent, claimants should pursue their solicitors, who are required to have insurance in place. Not even the fact that the solicitor’s files were seized in an intervention by the regulator, the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority, has been accepted as a good reason for missing the time limit (Sheredes School v Davies [2016] UKEAT/0196/16/JOJ).



In Opare-Addo v Wandsworth BC EAT/0740/01, the fact that a claimant was represented by her union was one reason why the tribunal thought she should have lodged her unfair dismissal claim in time. Her request for an extension was refused. 




An extension was allowed where a claimant sought advice from Citizens Advice who failed to tell her about the time limit (Marks & Spencer v Williams-Ryan [2005] IRLR 562), but in Remploy Limited v Brain [2011] UKEAT 0465/10/0203, the EAT said that “widespread public knowledge of unfair dismissal rights”, including the availability of free web-based resources, means that ignorance of time limits is increasingly less likely to be regarded as reasonable. 




The fact that an internal appeal is still ongoing is no excuse for missing the deadline. Time does not stop running because an appeal has not been decided. 




In Sterling v United Learning Trust [2015] UKEAT/0439/14/DM, a claimant was refused an extension of time to claim unfair dismissal when she missed the deadline as a result of her original Form ET1 being rejected because she got two digits of her Acas EC Certificate number wrong.




Even very short delays that result from technological failure, power cuts or mistyping are not generally accepted as a good excuse. For example, in Beasley v National Grid Electricity Transmissions [2007] UKEAT/0626/06/DM, an extension was refused for a claimant whose claim was one minute 28 seconds late due to mistyping a digit.




A claimant who realises they have missed a deadline must act urgently to issue their claim as quickly as possible. Otherwise, the tribunal is likely to refuse to extend time, irrespective of the reason for missing the original deadline. 




In practice, the three-month deadline should be approached as if it is cast in stone. Only very rarely will it be extended and it is difficult to predict when this will happen. Even if an extension is granted, the claimant starts off on the back foot, with the expense of extra tribunal hearings and the risk that the employer will ask the tribunal to order that its legal costs for these extra hearings be paid by the claimant. It is vital that the Acas EC Notification Form — the first step in any claim — is submitted to Acas well inside the time limit, and that the ET1 Claim Form is completed and ready, so as to be filed comfortably on time (see Chapter 14).