Case 2400213/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Sharon Miller v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2400213/2024
- Decision date
- 3 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tobin Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Sharon Miller
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a remote hearing in Manchester on 26 November 2024, Employment Judge Tobin held that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear Mrs Sharon Miller's claim because she did not have and/or could not produce a relevant ACAS Early Conciliation Certificate at the time she issued proceedings, referring to s18A Employment Tribunals Act 1996 and rules 10(1)(c) and 12(1)(c) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.
The judgment also recorded that the claimant's unfair dismissal claim under s94 Employment Rights Act 1996 was presented outside the time limit in s111 Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented within the appropriate time limit and within such further period as the tribunal considered reasonable.
Because of those jurisdiction and timeliness findings, the tribunal struck out the proceedings. No liability finding or monetary remedy was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal did not determine the merits. It found it had no jurisdiction because the claimant did not have and/or could not produce a relevant ACAS Early Conciliation Certificate when proceedings were issued, and it also found the unfair dismissal claim was presented out of time and not within a further reasonable period. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s18A Employment Tribunals Act 1996
- rules 10(1)(c) and 12(1)(c) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- s94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- 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.