Case 1301405/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Jack Hickinbottom v ACG Building Services Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1301405/2021
- Decision date
- 18 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hindmarch Appearances
- Venue
- Birmingham in private
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Jack Hickinbottom
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Birmingham private CVP hearing on 17 and 18 October 2022 before Employment Judge Hindmarch, the tribunal recorded that it had no jurisdiction to hear Mr Jack Hickinbottom's unfair dismissal complaint and dismissed that claim. It also dismissed the claims for unlawful deduction from wages and breach of contract as not well founded.
The claim for notice pay succeeded, and the tribunal made an award of £207.83. The extracted judgment gives no further reasons beyond those outcome statements.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal stated that it had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint of unfair dismissal and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The judgment states that the claim for notice pay succeeds and awards £207.83. The extracted text does not assign this claim a statutory category. | Upheld | — | £208 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claim for unlawful deduction from wages was not well founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the breach of contract claim was not well founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £208
- across all upheld claims
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.