Paul Beswetherick v Good Hemp — 2026

Case reference: 6014196/2025
Decision date: 13 January 2026
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Midgley Representation
Venue: Bristol

Indexed: 18 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Paul Beswetherick

Respondent

Good Hemp

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Tribunal read the papers, heard evidence from the claimant, and heard argument from the claimant in person and from Mr van Burck for the respondent.

The claims were dismissed pursuant to Rule 28. The Tribunal found that it had no jurisdiction because the claimant had failed to present the claims in time and it was reasonably practicable for him to have done so.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Breach of contract	Dismissed pursuant to Rule 28 because the Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction: the claim was not presented in time and it was reasonably practicable to have done so.	Dismissed	—	—
Unfair dismissal	Dismissed pursuant to Rule 28 because the Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction: the claim was not presented in time and it was reasonably practicable to have done so.	Dismissed	—	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	Dismissed pursuant to Rule 28 because the Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction: the claim was not presented in time and it was reasonably practicable to have done so.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

2 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.