Case 2408574/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Blackburn v Concentrix CVG Intelligent Contact Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2408574/2020
- Decision date
- 16 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Horne Representatives
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Blackburn
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Horne at Liverpool on 6 November 2020, the tribunal considered whether it had jurisdiction to hear Mr M Blackburn's complaint of unfair dismissal against Concentrix CVG Intelligent Contact Ltd. The judgment records that the claim had been presented after the expiry of the statutory time limit for that complaint.
The tribunal was satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented before the time limit expired and that the complaint was presented within such further period as the tribunal considered reasonable. On that basis, it held that it had jurisdiction to consider the unfair dismissal complaint.
The judgment did not determine whether the dismissal was unfair and did not record any remedy. It also noted that written reasons had been requested orally at the hearing and would follow in due course.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary hearing judgment only decided that the tribunal had jurisdiction to consider the unfair dismissal complaint despite late presentation; it did not determine the merits of the unfair dismissal complaint. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- not reasonably practicable
- within such further period as the tribunal considered reasonable
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.