Case 3305132/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Blakeley v Bubblegum Balloons Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3305132/2023
- Decision date
- 28 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Members
- Venue
- Reading
- Panel members
- Mr P Hough, Mrs B Osborne
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Blakeley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant was not dismissed during the telephone call on 22 February 2023. It accepted that the respondent had genuine concerns about his performance, although it was not satisfied on the evidence before it that the alleged false information in bi-weekly meetings had been demonstrated.
The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed on 31 March 2023. It concluded that the claimant's refusal to return the respondent's laptop was a repudiatory breach of contract and amounted to gross misconduct, so the notice pay complaint was dismissed.
For the sex-related complaints, the tribunal preferred the respondent's account of the Christmas party announcement and found that the correct version of events did not amount to harassment. It accepted that complaints about gender discrimination were made on 22 February 2023, but found they did not result in the dismissal or the respondent's contact with Mr Fairclough.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was not dismissed on 22 February 2023 and that his later dismissal was not because of asserted statutory rights under section 104 ERA. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The notice pay issue was addressed as wrongful dismissal; the tribunal found the refusal to return the laptop was a repudiatory breach of contract amounting to gross misconduct. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that holiday pay was claimed and that the claimant's complaints were dismissed, but the extracted reasons do not contain a separate holiday pay analysis. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The judgment states that age discrimination was claimed and that the claimant's complaints were dismissed, but the extracted reasons do not contain a separate age discrimination analysis. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Sex discrimination | The sex discrimination matters identified in the judgment concerned the Christmas party comment and the complaint about cleaning women's toilets; the complaints were dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal found the claimant's recollection of the Christmas party announcement was not accurate and that the correct version of events did not amount to harassment related to sex. |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Omar v Epping Forest District Citizen Advice [2003] EAT 132
- section 104 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 27 Equality Act 2010
- repudiatory breach of contract
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.