Case 2500536/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Birch v TATA Consumer Products GB Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 2500536/2025
- Decision date
- 17 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heather
- Venue
- Teesside Justice Centre
- Panel members
- Mr G Gallagher, Mrs C Hunter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Birch
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dismissed Mr M Birch's complaint of unfair dismissal as not well-founded. It also dismissed the automatic unfair dismissal complaint upon withdrawal; the judgment does not identify the statutory basis of that complaint.
The Tribunal upheld the complaint of wrongful dismissal, described in the judgment as breach of contract (wrongful dismissal), and held that Mr Birch was entitled to a remedy for breach of contract. No amount was determined in this judgment: the parties were encouraged to resolve remedy without a further hearing and were directed to notify the Tribunal by 15 July 2026 whether a remedy hearing was required.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The judgment identifies this complaint only as automatic unfair dismissal and does not state its statutory basis. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment describes this as breach of contract (wrongful dismissal). Remedy remained to be determined or agreed. | Upheld | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.