Case 6022472/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Haigh v Actihire Venues Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 6022472/2024
- Decision date
- 5 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bright Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Haigh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dismissed Mr M Haigh's claim against Actihire Venues Ltd under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The supplied gov.uk listing categories identify the proceedings as concerning breach of contract and disability discrimination, although the judgment does not separately describe those causes of action.
Mr Haigh did not attend and was not represented at the hearing in Leeds on 5 May 2026. Before dismissing the claim, the Tribunal considered the information available to it and made such enquiries as were practicable concerning the reasons for his absence. The judgment records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment dismisses the claim as a whole under Rule 47 but does not separately identify the pleaded causes of action; this classification reflects the supplied gov.uk listing category. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment dismisses the claim as a whole under Rule 47 but does not separately identify the pleaded causes of action; this classification reflects the supplied gov.uk listing category. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.