Case 2408266/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Holland v Genesis Monitoring Solutions Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2408266/2022
- Decision date
- 6 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge KM Ross
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Holland
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the claim for a redundancy payment because Mr Holland had insufficient service with Genesis Monitoring Solutions Ltd to bring such a claim, and the Tribunal said it therefore had no jurisdiction to hear it. The judgment records no substantive determination on the merits of that claim.
By a letter dated 2 February 2023, the Tribunal gave Mr Holland an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing as to why the unpaid guarantee pay and holiday pay complaints should not be struck out for not having been actively pursued. Mr Holland did not make representations and did not request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore struck out both of those claims.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Struck out because the claimant had insufficient service with the respondent to bring a redundancy payment claim, so the Tribunal said it did not have jurisdiction. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The claim for unpaid guarantee pay was struck out after the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on whether it should be struck out for not being actively pursued; no representations or hearing request was made. | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The holiday pay claim was struck out after the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on whether it should be struck out for not being actively pursued; no representations or hearing request was made. | Struck out | — | — |
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.