Case 3207231/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Keeper v Refuge (a charity and a company limited by guarantee) — 2023
- Case reference
- 3207231/2021
- Decision date
- 1 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge John Crosfill
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Mrs M Legg, Ms C Clover
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J Keeper
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Ms J Keeper's unfair dismissal claim under Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was well founded. It also found no basis for reducing any compensatory award under section 123 on the footing that she could or would have been fairly dismissed, and it directed a further hearing to determine remedy. The separate claim that the reason for dismissal fell within section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed.
Ms Keeper's direct age discrimination claims under sections 13 and 39 of the Equality Act 2010 were withdrawn, as were the whistleblowing claims under sections 47B and 48 that had been set out in her further and better particulars. The remaining whistleblowing claims under sections 47B and 48, relating to a meeting on 7 July 2020 and the decision not to offer her the role of Director of Service Delivery without any selection process, were dismissed. The whistleblowing claim relating to a meeting on 1 June 2020 was found to have been presented outside the section 48 time limit, and the tribunal recorded that it had no jurisdiction to award any remedy for that claim.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim under Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal held it was well founded and also found no basis for reducing any compensatory award under section 123 on the footing that the claimant could or would have been fairly dismissed. | Upheld | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Claim that the reason for dismissal fell within section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Direct discrimination claims under sections 13 and 39 of the Equality Act 2010 were withdrawn by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
| Whistleblowing | Claims under sections 47B and 48 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 that were set out in the claimant's further and better particulars were withdrawn. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Claims under sections 47B and 48 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 relating to a meeting on 7 July 2020 and the decision not to offer the claimant the role of Director of Service Delivery without any selection process. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Part X ERA 1996
- s.123 ERA 1996
- s.103A ERA 1996
- ss.47B and 48 ERA 1996
- ss.13 and 39 Equality Act 2010
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.