Case 2302326/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Coker v The Brockley Brewing Company Heard by CVP — 2022
- Case reference
- 2302326/2021
- Decision date
- 24 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Corrigan Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Coker
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Corrigan, heard by CVP on 10 March 2022. The written record states that the claimant was dismissed on 19 February 2021.
The tribunal held that, because the dismissal occurred on 19 February 2021, the claimant's claims were submitted in time. The document does not set out any substantive findings on liability for the underlying claims.
No remedy was recorded in the written judgment, and the note at the end states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. The record is therefore limited to the timeliness finding at the preliminary stage.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary hearing only; the judgment records that the claimant was dismissed on 19 February 2021 and that the claims were therefore submitted in time. No merits determination is given in the written record. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Preliminary hearing only; the judgment records that the claimant was dismissed on 19 February 2021 and that the claims were therefore submitted in time. No merits determination is given in the written record. | Other | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Preliminary hearing only; the judgment records that the claimant was dismissed on 19 February 2021 and that the claims were therefore submitted in time. No merits determination is given in the written record. | Other | — | — |
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.