Successful Unfair Dismissal Claim at Employment Tribunal
📌 In brief
The Employment Tribunal found that an employee was unfairly dismissed by their employer and subjected to various forms of discrimination. The tribunal ruled in favour of the claimant, awarding them compensation for unfair dismissal, wrongful termination, and unlawful deductions from wages.
⚖️ Legal holding
An employer must not dismiss an employee for reasons that are not fair or justifiable under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
📖 What the law says
Under the Employment Rights Act 1996, Section 98 outlines the criteria for determining whether an employee's dismissal is fair or unfair. It requires the employer to provide the reason for the dismissal and prove that the reason falls within certain categories, such as capability, qualifications, conduct, redundancy, or a breach of duty or restriction. Additionally, the employer must act reasonably based on the size and resources of the company when deciding to dismiss an employee.
The Equality Act 2010, Section 13 defines direct discrimination as treating someone less favorably due to a protected characteristic, such as age, disability, marriage, civil partnership, race, or sex. There are specific provisions for age, disability, and pregnancy/maternity status, allowing for proportionate measures or special treatment in certain cases.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant was unfairly dismissed and suffered various unlawful deductions from wages, among other breaches of employment law.
📜 Headnote Official document
The claimant was unfairly dismissed by the employer and subjected to various forms of discrimination, including pregnancy and maternity discrimination. The tribunal ruled in favour of the claimant on multiple grounds, ordering the employer to pay compensation for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, unlawful deductions from wages, and other breaches.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
Case Number: 2301900/2022; 2303613/2022; 2302129/2024
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted]
v
[APPELLANT] at: London (South) (via CVP)
On: 29 September-3 October 2025; 6-8 October 2025; 9 October 2025 (in Chambers); 5 May 2026 (judgment)
Before: Employment Judge Fredericks-Bowyer
Tribunal Member [NAME]
Tribunal Member [NAME] For the claimant: [redacted]
[APPELLANT]Counsel) (judgment) For the respondent: [redacted]
[NAME] ([NAME] [RESPONDENT]) (judgment)
JUDGMENT
1. The claimant was unfairly dismissed on 26 September 2023 and is owed a basic and compensatory award. The principal reason for dismissal was to remove someone perceived as a nuisance, which is not a fair reason for dismissal and not ‘conduct’ as the respondent pleaded.
2. The dismissal procedure was unfair.
3. No deductions are made from either element of the unfair dismissal award.
4. The claimant was wrongfully dismissed and is owed statutory notice pay in the amount of 11 weeks’ salary.
Case Number: 2301900/2022; 2303613/2022; 2302129/2024
5. The respondent subjected the claimant to pregnancy and maternity discrimination when it:-
5.1. refused to allow the claimant to return to work on 2 March 2023; and
5.2. dismissed the claimant on 26 September 2023.
6. The respondent subjected the claimant to harassment related to sex when it:-
6.1. commenced disciplinary proceedings against her in August 2022; and
6.2. dismissed the claimant on 26 September 2023.
7. The respondent subjected the claimant to victimisation following her protected act done on 19 July 2022 when it -
7.1. commenced disciplinary proceedings against her in August 2022; and
7.2. dismissed the claimant on 26 September 2023.
8. The respondent subjected the claimant to detriments because of her taking action in relation to health and safety under s44(1)(A) Employment Rights Act 1996 when it:-
8.1. commenced disciplinary action against her in August 2022; and
9. The respondent failed to account to the claimant in respect of accrued but untaken holiday at the end of employment, and the claimant is owed holiday pay.
10. The claimant suffered an unlawful deduction from wages (and also breach of contract) across the periods of time set out below when she should have been paid her salary rather than statutory sick pay:-
10.1. 4 March 2022 to 1 April 2022; and
10.2. 24 August 2022 to 19 September 2022.
11. The claimant suffered an unlawful deduction from wages (and also breach of contract) from 10 August 2022 to 26 October 2023 when her salary was wrongfully reduced.
12. In breach of contract, the respondent failed at the end of the employment to reimburse the claimant for one year of university fees incurred in academic year 2016/2017.
13. In breach of Section 38 Employment Act 2002, the respondent failed to furnish the claimant with an updated statement of particulars upon her reduction to part time hours.
Case Number: 2301900/2022; 2303613/2022; 2302129/2024
14. The claimant’s claim relating to her flexible working request is out of time when it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been brought in time, and so it is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
15. Any other allegation in the list of issues which is not recorded as succeeding above is not well-founded and is dismissed.
Employment Judge Fredericks-Bowyer
Dated: 5 May 2026
Case Number: 2301900/2022; 2303613/2022; 2302129/2024
1 of 2
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted]
v
[APPELLANT] at: London (South) (via CVP)
On: 6 May 2026
Before: Employment Judge Fredericks-Bowyer
Tribunal Member [NAME]
Tribunal Member [NAME] For the claimant: [redacted] For the respondent: [redacted]
1. The respondent is ordered to pay the claimant the following awards in respect of the unfair dismissal claim:-
1.1. Basic Award - £4,307.70 1.2. Compensatory award - £613.37
2. The respondent is ordered to pay the claimant the following amount in respect of her notice pay:-
2.1. £3,835.37
3. Statutory rights - £500.
4. The respondent is ordered to pay the claimant the following amount in respect of her accrued but untaken and unpaid holiday allowance:-
Case Number: 2301900/2022; 2303613/2022; 2302129/2024
2 of 2
4.1. £710
5. The respondent is ordered to pay the claimant the following amount in respect of its unlawful deductions from her wages:-
5.1. £5,537.44
6. For failure to provide updated written statement of particulars of employment, it is just and equitable to award the upper amount of 4 weeks’ pay, and so the respondent must pay the claimant the sum of £1,723.08.
7. The total to be paid under this judgment is £17,226.96.
8. The amounts should be paid in gross and the claimant should account to HMRC for any tax which falls due.
9. Outstanding remedy issues for breach of contract and discrimination will be determined at the next hearing.
Employment Judge Fredericks-Bowyer
Dated: 6 May 2026
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rules in Favour of Unfairly Dismissed Employee
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rules Against Unauthorised Wage Deductions
- Employment Tribunal Successful Claimant Awarded Costs by Employment Tribunal
- Employment Tribunal Successful Unfair Dismissal Claim at Employment Tribunal
- Employment Tribunal Unauthorised Wage Deductions: Employment Tribunal Decision
- Employment Tribunal Employer Ordered to Pay Compensation for Unauthorised Wage Deductions and B…
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rules in Favour of Constructive Unfair Dismissal and Bo…
- Employment Tribunal Unfair Dismissal: Claimant Awarded Reduced Compensation for Contributory Co…
- Employment Tribunal Worker Wins Unlawful Deductions and Holiday Pay Case at Employment Tribunal
- Employment Tribunal Claimant wins case over unauthorised wage cuts and unpaid holiday
- Employment Tribunal Claimant Successfully Proves Employee Status for Notice and Redundancy Pay
A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The employer failed to provide a fair reason for dismissal.
- The employer did not comply with statutory requirements regarding employment documentation, wages, and holidays.
- The employer made unauthorised deductions from the employee's wages without lawful justification.
- The employer did not follow the ACAS Code of Conduct on Disciplinary Procedures.
- The employer did not cover reasonable legal costs incurred by the claimant.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Employment Tribunal found that the employer unfairly dismissed the employee and subjected them to various forms of discrimination.
Who was involved?
An employee (the claimant) brought a case against their employer (the respondent).
How did the court decide, and why?
The tribunal ruled in favour of the claimant based on evidence that the dismissal was unfair and discriminatory.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Key provisions included s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996 for unfair dismissal and Equality Act 2010 s.13 for discrimination.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The central reasoning was that the employer's reasons for dismissal were not fair or justifiable under employment law.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was in favour of the claimant.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Individuals facing unfair dismissal and discrimination may have grounds to bring a case before an Employment Tribunal.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence such as emails, witness statements, and employment contracts were crucial in establishing the claimant's case.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, decisions from the Employment Tribunal can often be appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is highly recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.