Case 2502087/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Blenkinsop v Asda Stores Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2502087/2023
- Decision date
- 8 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Arullendran Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle CFCTC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Blenkinsop
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded a single judgment on the claimant's complaint of disability-related harassment. The complaint concerned an allegation that the respondent sent a van to the claimant's home on 28 September 2021.
Employment Judge Arullendran struck out that complaint under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The stated basis was that the complaint was submitted outside the primary three month time limit and there was no reasonable prospect of the claimant persuading the tribunal that it would be just and equitable to extend time.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing. The written record states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested by either party within 14 days of the decision being sent.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The judgment describes the complaint as disability-related harassment concerning the respondent sending a van to the claimant's home on 28 September 2021. It was struck out under Rule 37 because it was presented outside the primary three month time limit and the tribunal found no reasonable prospect of a just and equitable extension of time. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- primary three month time limit
- just and equitable to extend time
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.