Case 3321317/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. Joan Beltri v Impact Teachers Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 3321317/2021
- Decision date
- 27 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S. Matthews Representation
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. Joan Beltri
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought breach of contract and wrongful dismissal claims against Impact Teachers Ltd arising from a teaching placement at Woodbridge Park School. The judgment also records that an unfair dismissal claim had initially been included but was withdrawn and dismissed on 4 August 2022. After hearing evidence from the claimant, Mr Ronald Rosati and Miss Ashley Yee, the tribunal found that the claimant and respondent entered into a contract for him to teach at the School from 7 September 2021.
The tribunal held that the role was regulated activity from which the claimant was barred under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, so the contract was illegal. Applying Patel v Mirza, it concluded that refusing to enforce the contract aligned with the purpose of the legislation, which was to safeguard children, and that denial of the claim was a proportionate response because DBS clearance was central to the arrangement.
In the alternative, the tribunal found that the term requiring clearance of all documentation before commencement was incorporated into the contract, that the claimant was in breach because he was barred and could not obtain an up-to-date DBS check, and that this was a fundamental or repudiatory breach. It also found that the later terms and conditions were incorporated, including the clause allowing termination if the School ended its contract with the respondent. The tribunal did not determine employment status and dismissed the breach of contract and wrongful dismissal claims; no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that this claim was initially included but was dismissed upon withdrawal on 4 August 2022. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held that the contract was illegal because the claimant was barred from the regulated activity, and it also found that the claimant was in breach of incorporated terms requiring clearance of documentation, including DBS clearance. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The claim failed on the same illegality and breach findings; the tribunal also said it had not determined employment status and would not have jurisdiction if the claimant was a worker rather than an employee. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Patel v Mirza
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.