Skip to main content
Employment12 min read

Employment Tribunal Time Limits: Quick Reference Guide by Claim Type

Quick reference guide to employment tribunal time limits by claim type. Covers unfair dismissal, discrimination, whistleblowing, wages, redundancy, TUPE, equal pay, and ACAS extension calculations.

BundleCreator Legal Team
5 March 2026
Updated: 2 Oct 2026
Share:

Quick Answer

For most employment tribunal claims, the time limit is now six months less one day where the act complained of, the last act in a series, or the effective date of termination is on or after 1 October 2026. Where that date is before 1 October 2026, the old limit of three months less one day still applies. The starting date, extension test and ACAS conciliation calculation still vary by claim type. Discrimination claims benefit from the broader 'just and equitable' extension test; unfair dismissal and wages claims face the stricter 'not reasonably practicable' test. All time limits are subject to ACAS early conciliation extension under s.207B of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Missing your deadline is usually fatal to the claim.

What changed on 1 October 2026

The Employment Rights Act 2025 (section 152 and Schedule 12, brought into force by SI 2026/954) changed most tribunal time limits from three months to six months. Two further instruments made the same change for breach-of-contract claims (SI 2026/759) and for claims under the Part-time Workers, Fixed-term Employees and several other regulations (SI 2026/758).

The new limit only applies where the "relevant date" is on or after 1 October 2026. For unfair dismissal and breach of contract that is the effective date of termination; for discrimination it is the date of the act (or the end of conduct extending over a period); for wages it is the date of the deduction (or the last in a series). If the relevant date was before 1 October 2026, the three-month limit applies, even if you contact ACAS or file your claim after 1 October 2026.

Equal pay (6 months from the end of employment) and redundancy payment claims (6 months) were already six months and have not changed.


Primary Time Limits by Claim Type

Claim TypeStatutory ProvisionRelevant date before 1 Oct 2026Relevant date on or after 1 Oct 2026Runs FromExtension Test
Unfair dismissals.111 ERA 19963 months less 1 day6 months less 1 dayEffective date of termination (EDT)Not reasonably practicable
Wrongful dismissal / breach of contractArt 7 ET Extension of Jurisdiction (E&W) Order 1994 (as amended by SI 2026/759)3 months less 1 day6 months less 1 dayEDT (or last day worked if no EDT)Not reasonably practicable
Discrimination (Equality Act 2010)s.123 EA 20103 months less 1 day6 months less 1 dayDate of act (or end of conduct extending over a period)Just and equitable
Whistleblowing detriments.48 ERA 19963 months less 1 day6 months less 1 dayDate of act or failure to act (or last in a series)Not reasonably practicable
Unlawful deduction from wagess.23 ERA 19963 months less 1 day6 months less 1 dayDate of deduction (or last in a series)Not reasonably practicable
Redundancy payments.164 ERA 19966 months6 months (unchanged)Relevant date (usually EDT)Just and equitable (further 6 months)
Equal pays.129 EA 20106 months6 months (unchanged)End of employment (or stable work case)Concealment / incapacity / stable work
TUPE (failure to inform/consult)Reg.15 TUPE 20063 months less 1 day6 months less 1 dayDate the transfer is completedNot reasonably practicable
Working timeReg.30 WTR 19983 months less 1 day6 months less 1 dayDate the right should have been permitted or payment madeNot reasonably practicable
Collective consultation (protective award)s.189 TULRCA 19923 months less 1 day6 months less 1 dayDate of the last dismissalNot reasonably practicable

ACAS Early Conciliation Extension

Section 207B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 extends time limits to allow for ACAS Early Conciliation. It works in two steps, applied in order:

StepProvisionWhat it does
1s.207B(3)The days from the day after Day A (ACAS notification) up to and including Day B (certificate received) are not counted, so the limit is pushed back by that number of days
2s.207B(4)If the limit (after step 1) would expire between Day A and one month after Day B, it expires instead one month after Day B

Apply step 1 first, then check step 2. See our ACAS Early Conciliation guide for worked examples.


Extension Tests Explained

"Not Reasonably Practicable" (NRP)

This is a strict test. The claimant must show two things:

  1. It was not reasonably feasible to present the claim in time
  2. The claim was presented within a reasonable period after it became practicable

Ignorance of time limits is generally no excuse if the claimant had access to legal advice (Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd [1974] ICR 53). Illness, postal delays, and genuine factual uncertainty about the trigger date may succeed — but the bar is high.

"Just and Equitable" (J&E)

This is a broader discretion. The tribunal considers all relevant circumstances, including:

  • The length of and reasons for the delay
  • The extent to which the evidence has been affected by the delay
  • The merits of the claim
  • The prejudice to each party

The leading authority is Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust [2021] EWCA Civ 23, which held that tribunals should assess all relevant factors rather than rigidly applying the old Limitation Act 1980 checklist.

Even under the J&E test, an extension is not guaranteed. The longer the delay and the weaker the explanation, the less likely the tribunal is to grant one.


Continuing Acts and Series of Deductions

Discrimination: Continuing Acts

Conduct extending over a period is treated as done at the end of that period (s.123(3) EA 2010). The critical distinction is between:

  • A continuing act — an ongoing state of affairs, such as a discriminatory policy or a sustained course of conduct. Time runs from the end of the course of conduct.
  • A one-off act with continuing consequences — a single decision whose effects are felt over time. Time runs from the date of the decision, not from the date the consequences end.

Getting this distinction wrong is one of the most common errors in discrimination litigation.

Wages: Series of Deductions

For unlawful deduction from wages, time runs from the last deduction in the series. In Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland v Agnew [2023] UKSC 33 (a Northern Ireland case on materially identical wording), the Supreme Court held that a gap of more than three months between deductions does not, in itself, break a series, so the older "three-month gap" approach in Bear Scotland v Fulton should not be relied on. Separately, most wages claims cannot go back more than two years before the claim is presented (s.23(4A) ERA 1996).


ET3 Response Deadline

The respondent must present the ET3 within 28 days of the date the tribunal sent the ET1 to the respondent (Rule 17). Extensions of time for the response may be granted under Rule 21, but the application should be made before the deadline expires wherever possible. The consequence of failing to present a response is dealt with under Rule 22.


Practical Tips for Calculating Time Limits

  1. Identify the trigger date — this varies by claim type (EDT, date of act, date of deduction)
  2. Work out which limit applies, then count — if the relevant date is on or after 1 October 2026, go forward six calendar months and subtract one day (EDT 15 October 2026 gives 14 April 2027). If it is before 1 October 2026, go forward three months and subtract one day (EDT 15 January 2026 gave 14 April 2026)
  3. Apply the ACAS extension — apply step 1 (s.207B(3)) and then check step 2 (s.207B(4))
  4. Calculate each claim separately — if you have multiple claims (e.g. unfair dismissal and discrimination), each has its own trigger date and extension test
  5. Calculate each respondent separately — different respondents may have different ACAS certificates and different Day A/Day B dates
  6. Build in a safety margin — never file on the last possible day. Administrative errors, postal delays, and IT failures are not reliable grounds for extension

Common Mistakes to Avoid

  1. Confusing the 'not reasonably practicable' and 'just and equitable' tests — they have very different thresholds
  2. Failing to calculate the ACAS extension correctly — apply s.207B(3) first, then check s.207B(4)
  3. Treating a one-off act with continuing consequences as a continuing act for limitation purposes
  4. Forgetting that each respondent needs a separate ACAS certificate and separate time limit calculation
  5. Relying on ignorance of time limits as a ground for extension when legal advice was available

How BundleCreator Helps

When your claim proceeds to a hearing, BundleCreator's employment tribunal bundle templates help you create a properly formatted bundle with all the practitioner documents you need — chronology, cast list, skeleton argument, list of issues, and schedule of loss — automatically paginated and indexed to tribunal standards.



This article provides general information about employment tribunal procedures in England and Wales. It is not legal advice, and BundleCreator.co is not a law firm and does not provide legal services. Before submitting any documents to the Employment Tribunal, you should seek guidance from a qualified legal representative such as a solicitor, barrister, or trade union representative. Free initial advice may also be available from Citizens Advice, ACAS, or your local Law Centre.

time limitsemployment tribunallimitation periodunfair dismissaldiscriminationACAS extensionnot reasonably practicablejust and equitable

Ready to create your Employment Tribunal Bundle?

Templates for the claim stage, preliminary hearings and final hearings.

7-daytrial · No credit card required

See how our court bundle software builds the index, page numbers and bookmarks for you.

Short tutorial videos showing the exact BundleCreator features mentioned in this article.

About the Author

BundleCreator Legal Tech Team

Legal Technology Specialists

BundleCreator combines expertise in family law procedure, court technology, and legal document management.

Legal Technology CertificationCourt Procedure SpecialistsPractice Direction 27A Experts

Areas of Expertise:

Court bundle preparation • Practice Direction 27A compliance • Electronic document management • Family court procedures

Built by Stevie Hayes, a Governance, Risk and Compliance specialist who spent five years in the UK Family Court system. Published October 2025 · Last updated 1 October 2026.

support@bundlecreator.co · ICO Registration ZB969283 · UK GDPR