Case 1301009/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Marsh v Heart of Worcestershire College — 2018
- Case reference
- 1301009/2018
- Decision date
- 4 October 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Battisby
- Venue
- Birmingham in private
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Marsh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing in Birmingham in private on 4 October 2018 before Employment Judge Battisby sitting alone. The claimant, Mr A Marsh, appeared in person and the respondent, Heart of Worcestershire College, was represented by counsel. The judgment records no factual findings on liability beyond the procedural disposal of the claims.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant's claim of so called "normal" constructive unfair dismissal under s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. The same disposal was recorded for the claim for notice pay. No substantive determination of either claim was made.
No award or remedy is recorded in the judgment, and no split between heads of loss is given. The only legal reference in the text is to s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claimant's claim of so called 'normal' constructive unfair dismissal under s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the claimant's claim for notice pay was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.