Case 1302725/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Blake v P Flannery Plant Hire (Oval) Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 1302725/2023
- Decision date
- 30 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hughes
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Blake
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Hughes at Birmingham on 30 January 2024. The tribunal dealt with limitation and jurisdiction issues arising from Mr B Blake's claims against P Flannery Plant Hire (Oval) Ltd.
The tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claimant's unfair dismissal claim and his wrongful dismissal claim in breach of contract because it found it was reasonably practicable for those claims to have been presented in time. Both claims were therefore dismissed. The judgment does not record any monetary award.
The tribunal also recorded that the claim for a redundancy payment was presented in time and was to be dealt with under a separate case management order. Written reasons were not provided because the judgment was given orally at the hearing and no request for reasons was made within the stated time limit.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed at a preliminary hearing for lack of jurisdiction because the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Dismissed at a preliminary hearing for lack of jurisdiction because the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- reasonably practicable
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.