You Have Six Months to Bring an Employment Tribunal Claim. What Does That Mean for HR?
Why the Employment Rights Act 2025's change to tribunal time limits should make HR rethink how it manages employee relations cases.
For years, one of the dates HR professionals have had to keep firmly in mind is three months minus one day.
For most Employment Tribunal claims, that has generally been the time available to a claimant to bring a claim.
From 1 October 2026, that changes.
The Employment Rights Act 2025 increases the time limit for most Employment Tribunal claims from three months to six months minus one day. The change brings the limitation period more closely in line with existing longer time limits for certain claims, such as statutory redundancy and equal pay claims.
At first glance, this might look like a relatively straightforward legal change.
For HR, however, it has much wider implications.
It raises questions about how organisations manage grievances, disciplinaries, investigations, dismissals, settlement discussions, record keeping and historic employee relations issues.
Most importantly, it means HR should be much more cautious about thinking:
"That happened months ago - they're out of time now."
They may not be.
What is actually changing?
Under the current rules, most Employment Tribunal claims must generally be brought within three months minus one day of the relevant event.
From 1 October 2026, this increases to six months minus one day for most claims.
The change does not mean that every possible employment claim suddenly has a six-month time limit.
Different claims have different rules and exceptions.
For example, there are already claims with different limitation periods, and some claims can be brought outside the ordinary time limit where specific legal tests are met.
The change also doesn't mean that an employee can simply wait six months and then automatically bring any claim they want.
The underlying legal requirements for the claim still apply.
The key change is the window in which most claims can be presented to an Employment Tribunal.
There are also transitional provisions.
The new six-month period generally applies where the relevant act, failure or termination occurs on or after 1 October 2026. Claims relating to events before that date remain subject to the existing rules.
Why does this matter to HR?
Because employee relations cases don't always end when the internal process ends.
Consider this scenario.
An employee raises a grievance alleging that they have been treated unfairly by their manager.
HR investigates.
The grievance isn't upheld.
The employee appeals.
The appeal is not upheld.
The employee remains unhappy but stays in the organisation.
Three months pass.
Under the old timeframe, HR might have been tempted to think: "If they're going to take this to Tribunal, they'd have done it by now."
That assumption will become much less reliable. The employee may still have time to bring a claim. And that matters because HR's responsibility doesn't end when the grievance outcome letter is sent.
Internal processes and Tribunal claims are not the same thing
This distinction is important.
An employee raising a grievance does not automatically mean they are preparing to bring an Employment Tribunal claim.
Equally, an employee not raising a grievance does not necessarily mean there is no potential Tribunal risk.
The internal process and external legal process are separate.
An employee might:
raise a grievance and subsequently bring a claim;
raise a grievance but decide not to pursue the matter externally;
attempt to resolve the issue informally;
leave the organisation and later bring a claim;
bring a claim without having raised a formal grievance;
or use Acas Early Conciliation as part of attempting to resolve the dispute.
The purpose of HR is therefore not to treat every employee concern as a future Tribunal claim.
It is to manage the issue appropriately and preserve a clear record of what happened.
Don't let the longer deadline become an excuse for slower HR
There is an important irony here.
The limitation period is getting longer.
That doesn't mean HR processes should become slower.
If anything, organisations should be asking whether their internal ER processes are sufficiently effective to resolve issues before they escalate.
A grievance shouldn't sit untouched for weeks because there is now more time before a potential Tribunal claim.
An investigation shouldn't be delayed because "there's no immediate legal deadline".
And a manager shouldn't assume that because an employee hasn't mentioned legal action, the matter isn't serious.
Good ER practice should remain:
Prompt. Fair. Thorough. Proportionate. Well documented.
Grievances: don't treat the outcome as the end
One of the biggest practical implications is the importance of handling grievances properly.
Imagine an employee raises concerns about discrimination.
HR conducts an investigation.
The grievance isn't upheld.
The employee disagrees.
They appeal.
The appeal is rejected.
What happens next?
A good HR team shouldn't simply close the case and forget about it.
Instead, consider:
Is there any ongoing conflict?
Has the relationship between the employee and manager deteriorated?
Are there any wider team issues?
Have any concerns raised during the grievance identified a separate management problem?
Is there any risk of victimisation or detriment?
Does the employee need further support?
Does anything need to change as a result of the investigation?
Are all records complete?
The longer Tribunal window makes good case management even more important.
Disciplinary and performance cases matter too
The change isn't only relevant to grievances.
Consider an employee who is dismissed following a disciplinary process.
Under the new rules, where the relevant termination occurs on or after 1 October 2026, the employee will generally have a longer period in which to bring a claim.
That makes the quality of the disciplinary process particularly important.
HR should be asking:
Was the employee given a fair opportunity to respond?
Was the investigation reasonable?
Was the decision based on evidence?
Was the sanction proportionate?
Was the organisation consistent with how similar cases have been handled?
Are there clear records explaining the decision?
This isn't about creating a huge paper trail simply because a Tribunal might happen.
It's about being able to demonstrate that the organisation made a reasonable and fair decision.
Investigations become even more important
Good investigations have always been a fundamental part of ER.
But the longer limitation period reinforces the importance of getting them right.
Imagine an employee raises concerns about bullying.
The matter is investigated.
Six months later, a dispute develops over the accuracy of the investigation.
If the organisation has retained a clear record of:
the original complaint;
the terms of reference;
evidence gathered;
witness accounts;
relevant correspondence;
investigation findings;
decision-making;
outcome;
appeal;
and actions taken afterwards,
HR is in a much stronger position to explain what happened.
Compare that with:
"We investigated it at the time, but I think the HR manager who dealt with it has left and we can't find all the notes."
That's an entirely different risk position.
Record keeping isn't just an administrative exercise
The longer limitation period makes record keeping particularly important.
HR teams should consider whether their retention practices are appropriate for employee relations cases.
That includes thinking about:
How long investigation records are retained;
Where records are stored;
Who has access;
Whether records can be retrieved;
How different HR systems interact;
Whether emails and attachments are appropriately retained;
Whether decisions are documented;
Whether records distinguish fact from opinion;
How confidential information is handled.
This doesn't mean retaining everything forever.
Data protection principles still apply, including the requirement that personal data should not be kept for longer than necessary.
The point is to have a clear, defensible retention approach that recognises that an employee relations issue may remain relevant beyond the point at which the internal process concludes.
What about Acas Early Conciliation?
There is another important part of the picture.
Before bringing most Employment Tribunal claims, a claimant must usually notify Acas and go through the Early Conciliation process.
Early Conciliation can pause the relevant limitation period for a period of time.
That means HR shouldn't simply calculate a date from the original incident and assume that is necessarily the final deadline.
For HR, the practical lesson is:
Don't try to manage Tribunal limitation periods using a simple calendar reminder alone.
Where a case has genuine litigation risk, HR should obtain appropriate specialist advice and ensure the relevant dates are being calculated correctly.
What should HR do differently?
The answer isn't to panic.
And it certainly isn't to assume that every employee complaint will end up in Tribunal.
Instead, this is an opportunity to strengthen existing ER practice.
1. Review your case management process
Can HR easily see:
what cases are currently open;
when they were raised;
what stage they are at;
what actions are outstanding;
who owns the case;
and when follow-up is required?
If not, this is a good time to improve your case management system.
2. Review your grievance process
Ask whether grievances are being:
acknowledged promptly;
investigated appropriately;
handled by someone sufficiently independent;
documented consistently;
concluded within a reasonable timeframe;
and followed up where necessary.
The objective shouldn't be to complete grievances as quickly as possible.
It should be to complete them properly and proportionately.
3. Review disciplinary and performance processes
Make sure managers understand the difference between:
performance → capability → conduct → disciplinary action.
Poorly managed performance issues can easily become ER problems.
Managers should be trained to raise concerns early, set clear expectations and involve HR before a situation escalates.
4. Improve your investigation standards
A good investigation should establish:
What happened?
What evidence supports it?
What evidence contradicts it?
Who needs to be spoken to?
Are there any unanswered questions?
What conclusions can reasonably be drawn from the evidence?
Investigations should not simply be about finding evidence that supports the initial allegation.
5. Train managers
Managers are often the first point of contact when something goes wrong.
They don't need to know every Tribunal deadline.
They do need to know when to say:
"I need to involve HR."
Training should cover recognising potential ER issues, handling concerns appropriately, avoiding inappropriate comments, maintaining confidentiality and escalating issues promptly.
Should HR change its approach because employees now have longer?
Yes — but probably not in the way you might initially think.
The answer isn't:
"We now have six months, so we have six months to resolve the problem."
Instead:
"We have less reason to assume a problem has disappeared simply because three months have passed."
That distinction matters.
A historic grievance may still be relevant.
A previous dismissal may still result in a claim.
A workplace conflict may continue to develop.
And an employee who appeared to have moved on may later decide to take action.
The longer window makes good historical case management more important.
A practical example
Let's return to our employee.
They raise a grievance in November 2026 alleging bullying and discrimination.
The grievance is investigated and isn't upheld.
They appeal.
The appeal is concluded in January 2027.
The employee remains unhappy but doesn't resign.
By March, nothing further has happened.
HR might previously have looked at the calendar and thought:
"We're now several months on from the original issue."
Instead, HR should ask:
"Is there anything outstanding?"
"Has the working relationship improved?"
"Has the employee raised any further concerns?"
"Are there any ongoing risks?"
"Do we have a complete record?"
"Are there any related incidents?"
This is a much more useful ER mindset than simply counting down the Tribunal clock.
What should HR do before 1 October 2026?
There is still time to prepare. I'd suggest five practical steps.
1. Review your ER case management
Make sure open and recently closed cases can be easily identified and retrieved.
2. Review your record retention
Check how grievance, disciplinary, investigation and dismissal records are stored and retained.
3. Audit recent cases
Select a sample of recent ER cases.
Could someone unfamiliar with the case understand what happened simply by reviewing the file?
If not, that's worth addressing.
4. Train managers
Make sure managers understand that employee concerns should be escalated promptly and that the absence of an immediate Tribunal threat doesn't make an ER issue unimportant.
5. Update your ER guidance
Make sure HR teams understand the new limitation period, transitional rules and the role of Acas Early Conciliation.
For cases with potential litigation risk, obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on a simple calculation.
The bigger picture
The change from three months to six months may sound like a technical amendment.
But from an employee relations perspective, it reinforces something HR should already know:
The end of an internal process isn't necessarily the end of the relationship, the issue or the risk.
Good ER isn't about managing employees around the possibility of Tribunal claims.
It's about creating processes that are fair enough, thorough enough and well-managed enough that the organisation can explain and stand behind its decisions.
The longer limitation period simply means HR has less reason to assume that a case has disappeared because the three-month clock has expired.
And perhaps that's not a bad thing.
It encourages organisations to think beyond:
"Have we closed the case?"
and instead ask:
"Have we actually resolved the issue?"
Because those two things aren't always the same.
Final thought
Employment law often gets discussed in terms of deadlines, procedures and compliance.
But behind every Tribunal claim is a workplace experience.
Someone felt they were treated unfairly.
Someone believes a decision was wrong.
Someone may feel they weren't listened to.
HR can't prevent every dispute.
But it can influence how organisations respond when things go wrong.
The best ER teams don't just manage the Tribunal risk.
They manage the employee relationship that exists before a Tribunal ever becomes necessary.