Case 2501620/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Poole v Arete Learning Trust — 2023
- Case reference
- 2501620/2022
- Decision date
- 28 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Morris
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Poole
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a remote preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Morris sitting alone on 16 March 2023. The claimant, Miss J Poole, represented herself and the respondent, Arete Learning Trust, was represented by counsel. The tribunal dealt only with the claimant’s complaint of unfair dismissal under section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal found that the unfair dismissal complaint had not been presented within the three-month period beginning with the effective date of termination required by section 111(2). It also found that it would have been reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the complaint within that period. On that basis, the tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the complaint and dismissed it.
No merits findings were made on the dismissal itself, and no monetary award was made. The judgment was signed on 28 March 2023 and records that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of sending of the written record.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was presented outside the three-month limit in section 111(2) ERA 1996. The tribunal found it would have been reasonably practicable for the claimant to present it in time, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider the complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.111(2) ERA 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.