Case 6007846/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Hall v Mayer Environmental Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6007846/2025
- Decision date
- 8 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Hall
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr C Hall brought a breach of contract claim against Mayer Environmental Limited in relation to expenses. At a hearing by CVP in Manchester on 8 December 2025 before Employment Judge Dunlop, the respondent was represented by Mr S Garmory and the claimant appeared in person.
The tribunal struck out the claim. It found that the expenses claim had no reasonable prospects of success because the claimant could not show that he had presented the claim within the time limit in clause 7 of the Employment Tribunals (Extension of Jurisdiction) Order 1994.
The tribunal also found that the claimant could point to no other viable claim within the jurisdiction of the employment tribunal. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal struck out the claimant's breach of contract claim in relation to expenses because it had no reasonable prospects of success in showing that it was presented within the time limit in clause 7 of the Employment Tribunals (Extension of Jurisdiction) Order 1994. The tribunal also recorded that the claimant could point to no other viable claim within the tribunal's jurisdiction. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- clause 7 Employment Tribunals (Extension of Jurisdiction) Order 1994
- no reasonable prospects of success
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.