
Employment Law judgments from UK courts and tribunals, with a plain-English summary, the legal holding and frequently asked questions.
In a recent case heard by the Bristol Employment Tribunal, the claimant's request for interim relief was denied. The decision highlights the specific conditions required under section 128 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for such relief to be granted.
Three employment claims were dismissed by an Employment Tribunal because they lacked merit and failed to follow procedural rules. The claimants did not attend the hearing.
The Employment Tribunal dismissed all claims brought by an employee against their employer, the DVLA, for various forms of discrimination including race and disability. This case highlights the importance of providing evidence to support allegations in employment disputes.
In this case, an NHS employee claimed they were treated unfairly for whistleblowing. However, the Employment Tribunal found that the claimant did not reasonably believe their concerns about neonatal incident investigations showed a breach of legal obligations or posed a health and safety risk to the public. The claims were dismissed.
The Employment Tribunal ruled in favour of a worker who had their wages unlawfully reduced by their employer at the end of May 2025. The decision highlights that employers must have a lawful reason for making such deductions from an employee's salary.
In a case heard at Nottingham via CVP on May 1st, 2026, an employment tribunal ruled in favour of the worker for unauthorised wage deductions, breach of contract regarding notice periods, wrongful dismissal through redundancy and non-payment of holiday entitlements. The employer was ordered to pay damages totalling £8,381.47.
The Employment Tribunal dismissed a worker's case because they did not obtain an early conciliation certificate before filing their claim. This is required by law under section 18A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996.
In this Employment Tribunal case, it was determined that the claimant was indeed an employee of the second respondent company. As a result, the claims against the second respondent will proceed to a final hearing, while the first respondent has been dismissed from the proceedings.
An employment tribunal has dismissed a harassment claim based on insufficient evidence. The judge ruled that the case had no reasonable chance of success and was therefore struck out.
In this case, the Employment Tribunal ruled that the claimant was not disabled at work because they did not have a mental health condition with significant and lasting impacts on daily tasks. This means their disability discrimination claim failed due to lack of proof.
The Employment Tribunal dismissed the worker's case because they repeatedly failed to follow court orders and engaged in unreasonable behavior throughout the proceedings. As a result, the employer was granted legal costs.
The Employment Tribunal rejected the workers' unfair dismissal complaints because they were filed too late, outside the legal time limit set by statute. This means that even if the claims had merit, they could not proceed due to being out of time.
A worker won a case at an Employment Tribunal after being unfairly dismissed without proper notice or redundancy payment. The judge ordered the employer to pay compensation for unfair dismissal, breach of contract, and holiday pay.
The Employment Tribunal dismissed the claimant’s case because they did not actively pursue their claims as required. This decision highlights the importance of adhering to procedural rules when bringing a case before an employment tribunal.
In this case, the Employment Tribunal in Watford dismissed the worker's unfair dismissal claim against an online retailer. The judge found that there was no employment contract because the worker did not have a sufficient degree of control over their work and was not subject to mutuality of obligation.
An employment tribunal ruled that an employer's decision to dismiss an employee for gross misconduct was fair. The claimant, who had worked for over 30 years without prior disciplinary issues, argued unfair dismissal after being dismissed for allegedly disconnecting customer calls. However, the tribunal found reasonable grounds existed and upheld the dismissal.
The claimant won their case against the employer for unauthorised wage deductions and failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars. The Employment Tribunal ordered the employer to pay £2617.53 plus interest, as well as compensation under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002.
The Employment Tribunal ruled in favour of the claimants who argued that their employer failed to consult properly before making redundancies. As a result, they received protective awards under section 189 TULRCA 1992 for a period of 90 days starting from January 6th, 2025.
In this case, an employment tribunal denied interim relief to a worker who claimed they were dismissed because of whistleblowing activities. The judge found it unlikely that the dismissal was due to protected disclosures, as the employer had followed a detailed redundancy process and the employee did not engage with individual consultation.