Case 6000679/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs Denise Henry v Apex Prime Care limited and 2 others — 2023

Case reference: 6000679/2023
Decision date: 12 December 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Rayner
Venue: Southampton
Panel members: Mrs A Sinclair, Mrs K R

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

4 named

Claimant

Mrs Denise Henry

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal recorded by agreement that Enthuse Care Partners Southampton Limited, formerly the second respondent, was dismissed as a respondent. The remaining respondents were then the first, second and third respondents referred to in the judgment.

The tribunal dismissed the claimant’s claims of direct race discrimination, race-related harassment and victimisation. It also dismissed the claim that the claimant had been constructively and wrongfully dismissed. No award or other remedy was recorded in the judgment extract provided.

Claims and outcomes

5 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Race discrimination	The judgment dismisses the direct race discrimination claim against the remaining respondents.	Dismissed	Race	—
Harassment	The judgment dismisses the race-related harassment claim against the remaining respondents.	Dismissed	Race	—
Victimisation	The judgment dismisses the victimisation claim against the remaining respondents.	Dismissed	Race	—
Constructive dismissal	The judgment states that the claim that the claimant was constructively dismissed was dismissed.	Dismissed	—	—
Wrongful dismissal	The judgment states that the claim that the claimant was wrongfully dismissed was dismissed.	Dismissed	—	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.