Case 1305595/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Mark Henderson v Ingleby Services — 2023
- Case reference
- 1305595/2022
- Decision date
- 10 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Mark Henderson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Mark Henderson brought claims against Ingleby Services for breach of contract, race discrimination, and unfair dismissal. At the hearing on 9 March 2023, the tribunal recorded that the breach of contract claim and the race discrimination claim were dismissed following the claimant's withdrawal of those claims, with his consent to that course.
The unfair dismissal claim under section 94(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 did not proceed to a merits determination. The tribunal struck it out because the claimant did not satisfy the qualifying service requirement in section 108(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal finding that he had not had continuous employment with the respondent for two years before the effective date of termination.
The decision was issued by Judge Cowx sitting alone. No remedy was awarded and no compensatory or other monetary figure was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claim for breach of contract by failing to make a full payment in lieu of notice was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant, with his consent. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The discrimination claim on grounds of race was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant, with his consent. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal claim under section 94(1) ERA 1996 was struck out because the claimant did not meet the two-year continuous employment requirement in section 108(1) ERA 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.94(1) ERA 1996
- s.108(1) ERA 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.