Browse recent Employment Tribunal decisions heard at Birmingham.
£54,016.02 combined
Published decisions
Newest decisions first
Employer: Elements Europe Ltd (in Administration) and Secretary of State for Business & Trade
The employer failed to conduct any collective consultation before dismissing 141 employees for redundancy, breaching section 188 TULCRA.
Reference: 1304080/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Secretary State
The claimant succeeded in having commission included in the calculation of redundancy and notice pay, but failed on her claim for arrears of commission.
Reference: 6012517/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: HI Q Windows Ltd
The claimant succeeded on all three substantive complaints (unauthorised deductions, breach of contract for notice pay, and unfair dismissal) with the respondent ordered to pay compensation including ACAS uplifts.
Reference: 1303312/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: UK Fuels Ltd
The claimant's unfair dismissal claim was struck out for lack of the required two years' service, and all other discrimination claims were dismissed as not well founded.
Reference: 1303342/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Circle Health Group Ltd
Claimant won unfair dismissal but lost other claims; compensation limited to basic award due to Polkey reduction.
Reference: 1306301/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Cargo Marketing Services Ltd
The disability discrimination claims were found to be unfounded and dismissed.
Reference: 6002570/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Dr N Latif and Others
All complaints of sex discrimination, harassment, and victimisation were dismissed as not well-founded.
Reference: 6017057/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: T07558385 Ltd, formerly ‘Advanced Services (West Midlands) Ltd’
The respondent failed to file a response, and the tribunal determined the claim in the claimant's favour under Rule 22, awarding compensation for unpaid wages, notice pay, redundancy, and holiday pay.
Reference: 6024937/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Ridgwoodetti Ltd
The respondent did not contest the claim and the tribunal found the deduction was unlawful.
Reference: 6003061/2026 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Bosch Thermotechnology Ltd
All complaints were dismissed because the claimant was not a disabled person at the relevant times and the claims were not well-founded.
Reference: 1311291/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Avonline Logistics Ltd
The claim was struck out because the claimant did not attend the hearing and had not actively pursued the proceedings.
Reference: 6025508/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Rosetta Lounge Harborne Ltd
The respondent failed to pay the claimant's wages, statutory sick pay, holiday pay, and provide required employment documents, leading to a fully upheld claim.
Reference: 1303073/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Elissa Motors Ltd (T/a Budgen Motors)
The claim of direct discrimination by reason of marriage was not well founded and was dismissed.
Reference: 1303178/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: K9 Vets Ltd
The claimant succeeded on a breach of contract claim for dismissal without notice but failed on race and sex discrimination claims.
Reference: 6002313/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: G4S
The claim was struck out because the claimant did not have two years of continuous service, so the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim.
Reference: 6045287/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: NGeneration Ltd
The complaint of unauthorised deductions from pay was well-founded because the respondent made deductions from the claimant's wages without lawful authority.
Reference: 6034247/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Mr M Arulampalam (Sometimes Known as M Isshani) and Sharjana Ltd (Dismissed as Party)
The claimant succeeded in claims for direct discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, and failure to provide a written statement, but failed in claims regarding reasonable adjustments and harassment.
Reference: 1303250/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Stonegate Pub Company Ltd
The Tribunal found that the claimant accepted the new role without protest, the increased workload was normal for the seniority and pay level, and the changes fell within the scope of her contract, so there was no fundamental breach of contract by the employer.
Reference: 1301928/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Birmingham City Council
The claimants' equal pay claims failed because the Tribunal found that the work of Business Advisers was not the same or broadly similar to that of Account Managers, and any similarities were of practical importance.
Reference: 1304212/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Lounge and Skin Laser Clinic Ltd (In Creditors Voluntary Liquidation)
The claimant succeeded on unfair dismissal, breach of contract (notice pay), and holiday pay claims, but lost on the unlawful deduction for February wages, the training day claim was dismissed as out of time, and the training certificate reimbursement claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Reference: 1303508/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Genting Casinos UK Ltd
The claims were struck out because they had no reasonable prospects of success and the claimants did not comply with Tribunal rules or orders, and the early conciliation exemption was not available as the claims did not arise from the same dispute.
Reference: 1303045/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Evolution Home and Leisure Ltd
The Tribunal found that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed.
Reference: 6005868/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Staffline Recruitment Ltd
The tribunal found that the claimant's claims were not well founded and dismissed all of them.
Reference: 6009068/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Spaceship Wolves Ltd
The claimant succeeded on claims of unauthorised deductions, unfair dismissal, harassment, and victimisation, but the claim for direct race discrimination was dismissed.
Reference: 1303277/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Search the full case database by keywords, case details, similar facts and compensation awarded.
Case details come from published tribunal decisions. Always check the official decision before relying on a result.