Case 2600419/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Keane v Cope Children’s Trust PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2021
- Case reference
- 2600419/2021
- Decision date
- 12 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Camp Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Keane
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Camp on 10 August 2021. The claimant, Mr J Keane, appeared in person and the respondent, Cope Children's Trust, was represented by Miss J Tunnicliff, solicitor. The tribunal stated that reasons were given orally and that the claimant's entire claim was dismissed on the basis set out in the judgment.
The tribunal found that the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint, described as his one and only specific complaint before the tribunal, had been presented outside the time limits in sections 111(2)(a) and (b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. On that basis, the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.
The tribunal also refused permission to amend the claim so that the claimant could pursue complaints of sex discrimination. The judgment does not record any merits findings on the proposed discrimination complaints, only that amendment was refused. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant's unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed because it was presented outside the time limits in sections 111(2)(a) and (b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal refused permission to amend the claim to enable complaints of sex discrimination to be pursued. No merits determination was made on those complaints. | Other | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- sections 111(2)(a) and (b) of the 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.