Case 6021039/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Cooper v Amazon UK Services Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6021039/2024
- Decision date
- 28 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Cooper
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Cooper brought a claim of unfair dismissal against Amazon UK Services Ltd after his employment ended on or around 16 November 2022. The preliminary hearing considered whether the claim could proceed given the time limits for unfair dismissal claims.
The Tribunal found that the claim was presented outside the primary time limit under s.111(2)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996, taking account of the early conciliation extension. It found that Mr Cooper had not established that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time.
The Tribunal also found that, even if it had not been reasonably practicable to present the claim in time, the later presentation of the claim was not within such further period as was reasonable. The Tribunal therefore held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim and dismissed it.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction because the claim was presented outside the applicable time limit. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.111(2)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.207B Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.111(2)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
- Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council [1984] ICR 372
- Walls Meat Co v Khan [1979] ICR 52
- Trevelyans (Birmingham) Ltd v Norton [1991] ICR 488
- Inchcape
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.