Case 2402621/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Guy Greenhalgh v Mayo Civil Engineering Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2402621/2021
- Decision date
- 24 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Guy Greenhalgh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Manchester Tribunal by Judge Miller-Varey sitting alone on 24 January 2022. The claimant, Mr Guy Greenhalgh, appeared in person and the respondent was represented by its director, Mr Mayo. Written reasons were not provided because the judgment states that reasons were given orally and no request for written reasons was made at the hearing.
The tribunal found that Mr Greenhalgh had not been employed by Mayo Civil Engineering Limited for two complete years at the date of his dismissal. It also found that the claimant's automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.100(1)(a), (c), (d) and/or (e) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, described in the judgment as a health and safety claim, was not well-founded.
Accordingly, the tribunal dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal claims in their entirety. No monetary award was made, and the written record records no remedy figures.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant was not employed by the respondent for two complete years at the date of dismissal. The claim of automatic unfair dismissal under s.100(1)(a), (c), (d) and/or (e) ERA 1996 was found not well-founded and dismissed, and the unfair dismissal claims were dismissed in their entirety. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.100(1)(a), (c), (d) and/or (e) 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.