Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police

Case Summary

The claim against the Respondent is dismissed pursuant to rule 47 of The Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.

• •The Claimant has brought claims against the Respondent for unfair dismissal and age and sex discrimination

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr H Blumire Respondent: Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police Heard at: Cambridge On: 18 November 2025 Before: Employment Judge Tynan Appearances For the Claimant: Did not attend and was not represented For the Respondents: Ms V Von Wachter JUDGMENT The claim against the Respondent is dismissed pursuant to rule 47 of The Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. REASONS 1. The Claimant has brought claims against the Respondent for unfair dismissal and age and sex discrimination. He had insufficient length of service with the Respondent to claim ‘ordinary’ unfair dismissal. Today’s hearing, which was listed for case management, was an opportunity for the Tribunal to better understand the Claimant’s claim that he was discriminated against. Notice of the hearing was sent to the parties by email on 1 July 2025, in the case of the Claimant to the email address given in form ET1. The parties were also provided with case management agenda forms to complete. Finally, a strike out warning was issued to the Claimant in respect of his unfair dismissal claim given his length of employment with the Respondent. 2. The Claimant did not attend today’s hearing and has not made any written representations to the Tribunal. He has not submitted a completed agenda form. Efforts were made to contact the Claimant by phone today, but the call went through to voicemail. 3. On receipt of his claim the Respondent requested further limited information from the Claimant regarding his discrimination complaints. I am told that the Claimant has not responded to this request, nor it seems has the Claimant responded to the Respondent’s subsequent application to the Tribunal on 6 February this year for an order that he provide that information. 4. The Claimant has not responded to the Tribunal’s strike out warning in respect of his unfair dismissal complaint. …