Case 3302771/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Marques v Circular 1 Health Track and Testing Services Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3302771/2023
- Decision date
- 19 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Arullendran REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Marques
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Watford Employment Tribunal on 22 October 2025, Employment Judge Arullendran heard the case with Mr J Marques appearing in person and no attendance for the respondent, Circular 1 Health Track and Testing Services Limited. The published judgment states that all claims brought by the claimant against the respondent were dismissed. No monetary award is recorded.
The written record does not set out substantive reasons for the dismissal. It notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would only be provided if requested within 14 days, so the published text contains only the outcome and procedural information rather than detailed findings on the individual heads of claim.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The published judgment records only that all claims were dismissed and does not break out separate findings for individual heads of claim; this classification follows the GOV.UK case listing category supplied in the case context. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Mapped from the case listing category 'Protective Award'. The published judgment itself does not identify the individual claim labels or separate findings. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The published judgment records only a global dismissal and gives no separate reasoning for this head of claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The published judgment records only a global dismissal and gives no separate reasoning for this head of claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.