Case 2201215/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Perks v East London Science School Trust — 2022
- Case reference
- 2201215/2022
- Decision date
- 26 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Reid Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Perks
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Perks presented his claim on 13 March 2022 after his employment ended on 18 October 2021. The tribunal found that the ordinary three-month time limit for unfair dismissal expired on 17 January 2022 and that he did not benefit from the ACAS conciliation extension because he did not contact ACAS until 25 January 2022. The tribunal therefore considered whether time should be extended under s111(2)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996 on the basis that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time.
The tribunal rejected that argument. It found that Mr Perks knew on 18 October 2021 that he was resigning with immediate effect and treating himself as constructively dismissed, that he had advice from Mr Harris of United Voices of the World, and that he was not said to have been ill or incapacitated. The tribunal accepted that he had decided not to bring a claim at that stage because he wished to preserve a separate working relationship connected to a science project, but it held that this did not make it not reasonably practicable to present the unfair dismissal claim within the time limit.
The tribunal also found that the later post-employment disciplinary process did not change the position, because the claim had already crystallised on the claimant's own account as a constructive dismissal in October 2021. It concluded that the claimant only changed his mind about litigating when he was invited to a disciplinary meeting by letter dated 24 January 2022, by which point the claim was already out of time. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The race discrimination claim was recorded as withdrawn, and the listed January 2024 hearing would not go ahead.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment records that the race discrimination claim was withdrawn; no merits finding was made. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claim was presented outside the s111(2)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996 time limit and the tribunal refused to extend time under s111(2)(b) because it found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s111(2)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s207B(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s207B(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s111(2)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996
- not reasonably practicable
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.