Case 1600791/2021 · Employment Tribunal

Mr D Coughlin v The Governing Body of Cathays High School and 1 other — 2022

Case reference: 1600791/2021
Decision date: 24 March 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Webb Representation

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

Mr D Coughlin

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal considered two claims at a hearing on 23 March 2022. The claimant represented himself and the respondents were represented by counsel.

The claim for detriment on the basis of trade union membership or representation concerned events in 2018. The tribunal found that it had been presented out of time, that it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time, and that the tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to hear it. The claim was dismissed.

The direct age discrimination claim concerned events in 2014 and 2018. The tribunal found that it had been presented out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time for presentation of the claim. The tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim and dismissed it.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Trade union	The tribunal held that the claim for detriment on the basis of trade union membership/representation was presented out of time and that it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it.	Dismissed	—	—
Age discrimination	The tribunal held that the direct age discrimination claim relating to events in 2014 and 2018 was presented out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it.	Dismissed	Age	—

Legal tests applied

2 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.