Case 2408741/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Keates v Purple Apple Management Ltd (in Liquidation) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2408741/2023
- Decision date
- 26 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Keates
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary issue hearing before Employment Judge Dunlop on 19 January 2024. The claimant, Mr R Keates, appeared in person with support from his father. The respondent, Purple Apple Management Ltd (in liquidation), did not attend and was not represented. The Tribunal dealt only with jurisdiction and time limit issues, not the merits of the underlying claims.
The Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claimant’s claims of unauthorised deductions from wages for unpaid salary and holiday pay, breach of contract for notice pay and expenses, and redundancy payment. It found that the claims were presented outside the applicable time limits.
For the wages claims, the Tribunal referred to section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996. For the breach of contract claims, it referred to Article 7 of the Employment Tribunal Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994. For the redundancy payment claim, it referred to section 164 Employment Rights Act 1996. In each instance, the Tribunal concluded that the relevant tests for extending time limits had not been met.
The Tribunal therefore dismissed the claim in full. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim identified in the judgment as unauthorised deductions from wages (unpaid salary). The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the claim was not presented in time under section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996 and the relevant extension of time limit test was not met. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim identified in the judgment as unauthorised deductions from wages (holiday pay). The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the claim was not presented in time under section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996 and the relevant extension of time limit test was not met. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim identified in the judgment as breach of contract (notice pay). The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the claim was not presented in time under Article 7 of the Employment Tribunal Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994 and the relevant extension of time limit test was not met. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim identified in the judgment as breach of contract (expenses). The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the claim was not presented in time under Article 7 of the Employment Tribunal Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994 and the relevant extension of time limit test was not met. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear the redundancy payment claim because it was not presented in time under section 164 Employment Rights Act 1996 and the relevant extension of time limit test was not met. |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Article 7 Employment Tribunal Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- section 164 Employment Rights Act 1996
- extension of time limits tests
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.