Case 6004951/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Boalch v The Governing Body of North Baddesley Infant School — 2025
- Case reference
- 6004951/2024
- Decision date
- 23 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Yallop REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Boalch
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing in public on 6 March 2025, the parties agreed that The Governing Body of North Baddesley Infant School should be substituted for Hampshire County Council as the respondent. The hearing was before Employment Judge Yallop and the claimant appeared in person.
The tribunal found that the claim had not been presented within the applicable time limit. It further found that it had been reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the claim in time. On that basis, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the claim under section 111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996.
The claim was dismissed. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the tribunal's usual procedure.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal found the claim was presented outside the applicable time limit, that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present it in time, and therefore that it had no jurisdiction under section 111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
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.