Case 3313507/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. Blakey v North Northamptonshire Council HELD AT: Bury St Edmunds Employment Tribunal (By CVP) — 2025
- Case reference
- 3313507/2023
- Decision date
- 11 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Buckley REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. Blakey
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary issue hearing on 11 June 2025, Employment Judge Buckley held that the unfair dismissal complaint had not been presented within the applicable time limit. The judge found that it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time, so no extension was allowed and the unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed.
The tribunal also considered the failure to make reasonable adjustments complaint. That claim was treated as being within the period the Employment Judge considered just and equitable under section 123(2)(b), and it was allowed to proceed. No merits findings or remedy were recorded in this judgment, which dealt only with limitation and timeliness issues.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary issue: the complaint was not presented within the applicable time limit and it was reasonably practicable to do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue: the complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments was found to have been presented within such period as the Employment Judge thought just and equitable under section 123(2)(b), so it will proceed. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable under section 123(2)(b)
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.