Browse recent Employment Tribunal decisions heard at Nottingham.
£58,077.64 combined
Published decisions
Newest decisions first
Employer: Brake Caliper Specialists Ltd
The claimant's unfair dismissal claim was dismissed following a final hearing.
Reference: 6004043/2026
Employer: Transport UK East Midlands Ltd
The tribunal dismissed the discrimination claims as not well-founded but upheld the breach of procedure claim, awarding compensation.
Reference: 2601080/2024
Employer: Mr A Waqas
All claims were dismissed or struck out; the claimant did not succeed on any claim.
Reference: 6002805/2026
Employer: MG Solutions (UK) Ltd
The tribunal dismissed all three claims, finding the dismissal fair, the claimant guilty of gross misconduct, and no entitlement to notice pay or unpaid wages.
Reference: 6005978/2026
Employer: C and others
The claimants won on constructive unfair dismissal and victimisation/discrimination but other claims were not upheld, resulting in a split verdict.
Reference: 2602954/2018
Employer: Lacehouse Kitchen Ltd (Sauce Shop)
The Employment Judge found the dismissal was fair because the employer had a genuine belief in the misconduct, conducted a reasonable investigation, followed a fair procedure, and the decision to dismiss was within the range of reasonable responses; therefore the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.
Reference: 6038943/2025
Employer: Kidz Kaboom Play Centre and Nursery Ltd and Others
The claimant won on discrimination arising from disability and wrongful dismissal, but lost on harassment, reasonable adjustments, and failure to provide written particulars; direct discrimination was withdrawn.
Reference: 2600798/2024
Employer: Railway Electrical Services Ltd
The claimant failed to prove he was disabled at the material time, resulting in the dismissal of all claims.
Reference: 6003478/2025
Employer: Red Firs Carehome Ltd
The Tribunal dismissed the claims on jurisdictional grounds because the claim was presented out of time and the Claimant did not provide a reasonable explanation for the additional delay.
Reference: 6006259/2025
Employer: Royal Mail Group Ltd
The tribunal upheld the unfair dismissal claim and awarded compensation, reducing the compensatory award by 60% for contributory fault.
Reference: 6028335/2025
Employer: Specsavers Optical Superstores Ltd
The claims were dismissed because the claimant withdrew them and did not reserve the right to bring further claims, and the tribunal found no reason not to issue the mandatory dismissal.
Reference: 6019970/2025
Employer: Nottingham Trent University
The respondent failed to deal with the flexible working request in a reasonable manner, failed to consult, and failed to notify within the decision period, but the rejection was not based on incorrect facts.
Reference: 6044364/2025
Employer: 365 People
The respondent made an unauthorised deduction of £100 from the claimant's pay, which was well-founded.
Reference: 6002380/2026
Employer: Roost Opco 1 Ltd T/a Student Roost
Claimant failed to attend hearings and comply with orders; unfair dismissal struck out for lack of jurisdiction and other claims dismissed for non-attendance.
Reference: 6029516/2025
Employer: Grice Collins Long Ltd and Mr A Stanhope
The claimant's unfair dismissal claim failed because the employer had a genuine belief in his misconduct based on reasonable grounds, conducted a fair process, and dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. The wrongful dismissal claim failed because the claimant's conduct amounted to repudiatory breach.
Reference: 2602082/2024
Employer: Adullam Homes Housing Association
The claim of automatically unfair dismissal failed and was dismissed.
Reference: 6031432/2025
Employer: MJW Asbestos Removal and Reinsulation Services Ltd
The Tribunal found that the claimant resigned and was not dismissed, so the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.
Reference: 6020136/2024
Employer: University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust
Claimant succeeded in unfair dismissal because Respondent failed to obtain further medical evidence or consider alternative roles before dismissing, but discrimination claims failed due to lack of causative link or substantial disadvantage.
Reference: 6010801/2024
Employer: Nottingham City Council
The claimant lost because the tribunal found the employer had a reasonable belief in misconduct, conducted a reasonable investigation despite the claimant's non‑engagement, and dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses.
Reference: 2600942/2025
Employer: Jamia Al-Karam (a registered charity)
The complaint of unfair dismissal was struck out because it was presented out of time when it was reasonably practicable to present it in time.
Reference: 6031256/2025
Employer: Northern Lincolnshire and Goole NHS Foundation Trust
The Tribunal found the dismissal was unfair because the employer failed to follow its own disciplinary policy and constitution, the investigation was inadequate, and the decision to dismiss was outside the range of reasonable responses given the claimant's open use of vehicles with management approval and the lack of any clear policy prohibition.
Reference: 2600557/2024
Employer: Blachford UK Ltd
The claimant failed to prove that his dismissal was for asserting a statutory right or for raising health and safety concerns; the employer dismissed for capability reasons.
Reference: 6044148/2025
Employer: HCM Electrical Ltd
The tribunal found that the claimant's age materially influenced the decision to withdraw the offer of work, that he was treated less favourably than a younger comparator, and that the treatment was not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
Reference: 6001900/2024
Employer: Slenderella Wholesale Ltd
The claimant succeeded on all claims because the respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments for her disability, which led to her constructive unfair dismissal and breach of the Flexible Working Regulations.
Reference: 2600218/2024
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.