Case 1402416/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C D Blakeman-Hall v Biffa Municipal Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 1402416/2024
- Decision date
- 28 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Volkmer Representation
- Venue
- Bodmin
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C D Blakeman-Hall
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on time limits before Employment Judge Volkmer at Bodmin on 26 September 2025. The claimant did not attend. The judgment records that the claim had been presented on 6 September 2024 and that the parties disputed the effective date of termination: the claimant said the employment ended in October 2023, while the respondent said it ended on 23 November 2023. The tribunal took 23 November 2023 as the relevant date for limitation purposes.
On that basis, the primary three-month time limit expired on 22 February 2024. The tribunal held that ACAS early conciliation did not extend time because ACAS was notified only on 28 February 2024, after the primary period had already expired. The tribunal also noted repeated case management directions requiring evidence about delay, including medical records, a schedule of loss and a witness statement, but none were provided. It declined to place weight on an email from Cornwall Neighbourhoods for Change because it was hearsay.
The tribunal found there was no evidence that it had not been reasonably practicable for the claim to be presented in time. It therefore held that the claim was out of time, that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the claimant’s complaints, and dismissed the claim. No merits findings and no monetary remedy were made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment refers to unfair dismissal claims under ss96 and 98 ERA 1996. The tribunal dismissed the complaint for want of jurisdiction because it was presented out of time and the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present it within the primary limitation period. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The claim was also brought under s103A ERA 1996. The tribunal did not reach the merits of any protected-disclosure allegation and dismissed the complaint on the same time-limit and jurisdictional basis. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s111(2) ERA 1996
- s207B ERA 1996
- Pearce v Bank of America Merrill Lynch and ors EAT 0067/19
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.