Case 2200567/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Baba v Bidvest Noonan (UK) Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2200567/2025
- Decision date
- 14 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Emery REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Baba
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was dismissed on 21 June 2024 and the parties agreed that the primary three-month limitation period expired on 20 September 2024. The ET1 was submitted on 4 February 2025, after ACAS early conciliation began on 18 December 2024 and ended on 6 January 2025.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant had significant sight-related medical conditions, including glaucoma and anterior uveitis, which made it difficult for him to read, use a computer, and leave the house. It also accepted that he was unaware of the time limits and needed assistance with documents.
The tribunal concluded that, despite those difficulties, it remained feasible for the claimant to seek basic advice earlier from his union or Citizens Advice. It found that the main reason for the delay was lack of awareness of time limits, and that there was also unexplained delay after the claimant obtained advice. The application to extend time did not succeed and the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable time limit and the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonable practicability test
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- London Underground v Noel
- Palmer and Saunders v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Ebay (UK) Ltd v Buzzeo
- Schultz v Esso Petroleum Ltd
- Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan
- Cullinane v Balfour Beatty Engineering Services Ltd
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.