Case 6009144/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Charlotte Poole v Av2 Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6009144/2024
- Decision date
- 6 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Perry
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Charlotte Poole
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Charlotte Poole's unfair dismissal complaint against Av2 Ltd was struck out. Employment Judge Perry held that section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint, and the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
The tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but she did not provide an acceptable reason. It considered the section 104 Employment Rights Act 1996 exemption from the two-year qualifying period, but held that the statutory right asserted had to be the cause of the dismissal. The claimant said the reason for her resignation, and thus her dismissal, was non-payment of wages and associated points, so the tribunal found the section 104 exemption could not apply.
The tribunal also noted that the non-payment of wages was ongoing before the claimant asserted the statutory right, which made it difficult to see how the assertion of that right caused the non-payment. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant had less than two years' service, so she was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996. It also rejected reliance on the section 104 ERA 1996 exemption because the statutory right asserted was non-payment of wages and associated points, and the non-payment pre-dated the assertion of that right. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.104 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.