Employment Tribunal Claims – Outside the Time Limits [2]

Have you been misadvised by ACAS, CAB or a union adviser—and missed the deadline because of it? There may still be a route for you, but you’ll need to frame your explanation carefully and show solid evidence for why it wasn’t reasonably practicable to file in time. Today in our Employment Tribunal Claims we’re looking at Paczkowski v Sieradzka—a case that shows exactly how tribunals test misadvice claims.

At UDO (Unfair Dismissal Org), we take the quality of information seriously. Think of this series as a short class where I guide you, step by step, through the most important Employment Tribunal cases on claims made outside the time limit. The aim is simple: to explain, in plain language, what “not reasonably practicable” really means and how tribunals use that test in real life.

If you’ve done the groundwork—properly calculated your Effective Date of Termination (EDT) and applied the ACAS “stop the clock” rules—but you still find yourself filing after the three months less one day deadline, this series is your must‑read.

Not sure about your dates? Start here:

• Go to → How to calculate your EDT correctly 

• Go to → How ACAS Early Conciliation “stops the clock

---

Now, let’s break down today’s case together—clearly, calmly, and with practical takeaways you can use. Before we have started though, a quick caution: if you relied only on a friend or partner’s advice and didn’t try ACAS, CAB, your union, a law centre or a solicitor, a tribunal will usually say it was reasonably practicable to seek proper help — so simple unawareness won’t excuse a late claim. One of the most common mistake employees make is relaying on unawarness of time limit without seeking advice , you want to avoid it. Here we’re looking at how misadvice from non‑skilled or generalist sources is tested. The skilled‑adviser scenario (when you formally instruct a solicitor or similar) is different, and I cover that in a separate case note. It may be also the case that you get advice from skilled adviser from CAB, ACAS or union, in which case your chances are narrowed.

Citation

Paczkowski v Sieradzka (Jurisdictional Points: Extension of time: reasonably practicable)[2016] UKEAT 0111_16_1907 (19 July 2016) Click here to read full judgement.

We’re looking at Mrs Sieradzka’s case, however. She asked her employer, Mr Paczkowski, for written particulars of her employment because she was worried about underpayment of wages. She says she was then dismissed after making that request. Sensibly, she went for help—CAB, ACAS, then her union—but each told her (wrongly) that she couldn’t claim unfair dismissal without two years’ service, overlooking that a s.104 ERA claim (dismissal for asserting the statutory right to written particulars) doesn’t need two years. The tribunals had no issue with the fact she sought advice promptly; the appeal turned on whether the first tribunal had properly tested the misadvice—who advised her, what she told them, what they told her, and how skilled they were. Because those findings weren’t clearly made, the EAT sent the case back for a fresh assessment.

First takeaway — make misadvice provable.

If you’re late and plan to rely on misadvice, spell it out in detail: what you told the adviser, who advised you (name, role, organisation, and whether they were a skilled adviser or a generalist at CAB/ACAS/union), when and how the advice was given (call, email, in‑person), and the exact words (or closest wording) you were told. Simply writing “CAB/ACAS said I couldn’t claim” is not enough—the tribunal needs to see why it was reasonable for you to rely on that particular advice. Keep emails, letters, screenshots, call notes and helpline reference numbers, and record how quickly you acted once you learned the correct position. (If you instructed a solicitor or other skilled adviser, that’s a different scenario—we cover “skilled adviser” misadvice in another case note.)

Quick summary

• Issue: Late unfair dismissal claim under s.104 ERA (dismissal for asserting the right to written particulars).

• What happened: Mrs Sieradzka asked CAB, ACAS, and her union for help. Each told her (wrongly) she needed two years’ service, so she missed the deadline. She filed promptly after getting correct advice in October 2014.

• ET (first instance): Extended time—said it wasn’t reasonably practicable to file earlier and she acted quickly once she knew.

• EAT (appeal): Allowed the employer’s appeal and remitted the case—not because extensions are impossible, but because the ET didn’t make the specific findings needed to justify one.

Misadvice happens—even in well‑known organisations. But a late claim isn’t excused just because the advice was wrong. The tribunal needs to see:

• Who advised you and how skilled they were (CAB generalist vs specialist; ACAS helpline; union caseworker; solicitor).

• What you told them and what they asked you.

• Exactly what advice you received.

• Why it wasn’t reasonably practicable to file in time and how promptly you acted once corrected.

In this case, the first tribunal accepted lateness. The EAT said: do the testing work—make those findings clearly—or the decision is unsafe. If you have a similar situation, namely you got wrong advice from a similar organization, the key is to document everything before jumping into an argument of misadvice.

Your key action: your witness statement is evidence

It’s possible Mrs Sieradzka had a strong case, but the evidence before the tribunal didn’t nail the crucial detail. Remember: your witness statement is evidence. It’s not only emails from advisers or complaint outcomes. You’ll give evidence on oath/affirmation and can be cross‑examined. In cases like this, invest time in a clear, detailed witness statement.

What to cover (keep it simple, precise):

• Who advised: names, roles, and whether they were a skilled adviser e.g solicitor or legal officer

• What you told them: the key facts (e.g. did you tell the adviser the same background you pleaed in ET1 claim form ).

• What they told you: as close to the exact words as you can, explain what advice you recived.

• When/how: dates, times, phone/email/in‑person, any reference numbers.

• Why you relied on it: why filing earlier wasn’t reasonably practicable, e.g I beleived in the advice.

• What you did next: how quickly you realsied the advice was wrong and what you did after it.

• Exhibits: attach documents and signpost them clearly.

  
  

Important note: you do not need to have material evidence yet. The key is to make a claim as soon as you realize you were misadvised. Ideally, you want to put the grounds of unreasonably practicable in ET1. It is good practice to do so under the heading "preliminary issues." And, if you do not have material evidence yet, try to make a complaint to the organization you were misadvised by, inquiring about details you will need for your witness statements when your late claim application will be heard, usually in a separate preliminary hearing.

Short checklist you can follow today

• ✅ List each adviser (CAB/ACAS/union/solicitor) with date/time.

• ✅ Write down exactly what you asked and what they said.

• ✅ Gather proof (emails, letters, call notes, union records).

• ✅ Start/record ACAS Early Conciliation and file promptly once you know your right.

• ✅ In your ET1, explain why it wasn’t reasonably practicable to file on time and your speed afterwards.

  
  

Final thought: the test is reasonableness, not whether the advice was free or paid. What matters is who advised you, what you told them, and their role/skill level. If you instructed a skilled adviser (typically a solicitor, sometimes a union legal officer) and they missed the deadline, the law usually treats that mistake as yours — your route there is different, and I explain it in another summary. For this type of case, your best chance is a clean record of asking ACAS/CAB/union/law centre for help and acting promptly once corrected.