Case 3304184/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Marsh v G4S Care & Justice Services (UK) Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3304184/2022
- Decision date
- 29 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davey Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Marsh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr M Marsh brought claims against G4S Care and Justice Services (UK) Limited, heard at Bury St Edmunds by CVP on 10 to 12 July 2023 before Employment Judge Davey. The tribunal dismissed the constructive unfair dismissal complaint as not well-founded and also dismissed the breach of contract complaint relating to notice pay as not well-founded.
The remaining breach of contract complaint, which was not related to notice pay and was not particularised, was not pursued and was dismissed. The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was also not pursued and was dismissed. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing, but no written reasons were provided in the record available here.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Complaint of constructive unfair dismissal was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Complaint of breach of contract in relation to notice pay was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Complaint of breach of contract not related to notice pay and not particularised was not pursued and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was not pursued and dismissed. | 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.