Case 6021229/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Blumire v Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police — 2025
- Case reference
- 6021229/2024
- Decision date
- 18 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tynan Appearances
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H Blumire
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims for unfair dismissal and age and sex discrimination. The tribunal recorded that he had insufficient length of service to claim ordinary unfair dismissal, and that a strike out warning had been issued about that complaint.
The claimant did not attend the case management hearing, did not make written representations, did not submit a completed agenda form, and had not responded to requests or an application for further information about the discrimination complaints. The tribunal was satisfied that the claimant was aware of the hearing and had chosen not to attend, and dismissed the claim pursuant to rule 47.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant had insufficient length of service to claim ordinary unfair dismissal, and the whole claim was dismissed under rule 47 after non-attendance. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Dismissed under rule 47 after the claimant did not attend the hearing and had not provided further information about the discrimination complaints. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Sex discrimination | Dismissed under rule 47 after the claimant did not attend the hearing and had not provided further information about the discrimination complaints. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 47 of The Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.