Case 1300543/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs I E Odeyemi v Cergus Group Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 1300543/2024
- Decision date
- 8 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bansal
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs I E Odeyemi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal gave a unanimous judgment that Mrs I E Odeyemi's complaints of unfair dismissal contrary to s99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, unlawful discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy contrary to s18 of the Equality Act 2010, and wrongful dismissal were well founded and succeeded. The judgment does not set out the factual findings behind those conclusions in the extracted text provided, and no monetary award is recorded in the written record.
The respondent's contract claim was not well founded and was dismissed. The decision record is brief and does not identify any separate remedy allocations or a total award figure. Written reasons were not provided in the judgment itself, subject to any later written request within 14 days of the sending of the decision record.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal contrary to s99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was well founded and succeeded. | Upheld | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The judgment states that the claimant's complaint of unlawful discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy contrary to s18 of the Equality Act 2010 was well founded and succeeded. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment states that the claimant's wrongful dismissal complaint was well founded and succeeded. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the respondent's contract claim was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s99 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s18 Equality Act 2010
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.