Case 6012236/2025 · Employment Tribunal

Mr M Box v Hembury Fort House and 1 other — 2025

Case reference: 6012236/2025
Decision date: 19 November 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Livesey Appearances

Indexed: 17 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

Mr M Box

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Livesey at Bristol on 19 November 2025. By consent, the respondents' names were amended to reflect that Ms C White and Ms AO Taylor traded in partnership as Hembury Fort House. The claimant, a former maintenance manager/technician, had brought complaints of unfair dismissal, unpaid notice pay and wages, having presented his claim on 9 April 2025 after obtaining an Early Conciliation Certificate.

The tribunal considered an application to strike out under rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The judge found that, on the claimant's own account, the working relationship had ended in or around August 2024, and that a prior claim (Case No. 6022073/2024) had previously been brought and rejected for want of an ACAS certificate number. Even taking the claimant's later proposed termination date of 12 December 2024, or an email dated 31 December 2024, the claim was presented out of time under ss. 23 and 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and article 7 of the Extension of Jurisdiction Order. The claimant's substantial complaint concerned approximately £207,000 said to be owed for building works at the property; Employment Judge Smail had previously indicated, and Judge Livesey agreed, that such a claim for compensation for contributions to the respondents' property could not be brought in the Employment Tribunal.

For those reasons the tribunal concluded that the claim had no reasonable prospect of succeeding and struck it out.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Struck out under rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 as having no reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal considered the claim likely to be out of time under s.111 ERA 1996, and noted a prior rejected claim (Case No. 6022073/2024) covering the same matters.	Struck out	—	—
Breach of contract	Struck out under rule 38(1)(a). Included an alleged unpaid notice pay element; the claimant's wider claim for approximately £207,000 for building works carried out at the property was held not to be a matter the Employment Tribunal could determine (per Judge Smail's earlier direction). Likely out of time under article 7 of the Extension of Jurisdiction Order.	Struck out	—	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	Struck out under rule 38(1)(a). Likely out of time under s.23 ERA 1996; ACAS was contacted more than 3 months after the latest plausible termination date.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

16 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.