Case 1801846/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms E Hoyle v PMP Recruitment Ltd PUBLIC PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2022
- Case reference
- 1801846/2022
- Decision date
- 15 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shepherd Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms E Hoyle
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at a public preliminary hearing in Leeds by CVP video link on 15 July 2022 before Employment Judge Shepherd. The claimant was represented by Mr Brill, in-house solicitor, and the respondent appeared in person.
The tribunal struck out the claimant’s unfair dismissal claim as having no reasonable prospect of success. It found that she did not have sufficient qualifying employment under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment also records that she had no ACAS Early Conciliation Certificate.
On that basis, the tribunal stated that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out at a public preliminary hearing on the basis that the claimant did not have sufficient qualifying employment under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal also recorded that she had no ACAS Early Conciliation Certificate and that it therefore had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- no reasonable prospect of success
- ACAS Early Conciliation Certificate
- jurisdiction
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.