Case 2601629/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J P Keane v Pertemps Recruitment Partnership Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2601629/2022
- Decision date
- 7 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Broughton
- Venue
- Leicester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J P Keane
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt an open attended preliminary hearing in Leicester on 2 February 2023, before Employment Judge R Broughton sitting alone, the tribunal determined Ms J P Keane's religion-based harassment complaint and a respondent application concerning the constructive unfair dismissal claim. The harassment complaint under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 was dismissed because it had been presented out of time.
The tribunal refused the respondent's application to strike out the constructive unfair dismissal claim under rule 37 and/or to make a deposit order under rule 39. The written record states that the reasons were given orally during the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. No remedy award is recorded in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Harassment complaint based on religion under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 was presented out of time and dismissed. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The respondent's application to strike out the constructive unfair dismissal claim under rule 37 and/or for a deposit order under rule 39 was refused; the claim was not finally determined in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 26 Equality Act 2010
- rule 37
- rule 39
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.