Latest tribunal judgments.

Tribu Hair Studio Ltd: 6032196/2025

The claimant claimed unpaid wages including accrued holiday pay and an unpaid bonus balance from 2024. The tribunal found the respondent liable for unauthorised wage deductions of £1201.41 and breach of contract in failing to pay the outstanding bonus of £1900.00, finding the bonus agreement was unconditional and could not be withheld for alleged subsequent misconduct.

Ryanair DAC and Ryanair UK Ltd: 3203235/2022

The claimant, a Black pilot employed by Ryanair between February 2019 and May 2024, claimed direct race discrimination, victimisation, unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal. The tribunal dismissed the race discrimination claims but found victimisation succeeding on three specific issues (grievance rejection terms, grievance appeal outcome, and the 1 July 2022 bar on CU consideration), and found the dismissal procedurally unfair though concluded there would have been a 100% chance of fair dismissal had proper procedure been followed, resulting in no compensatory award but a basic award reduced by 75% for contributory conduct.

Willerby Holiday Homes Ltd: 6041506/2025

The claimant, the claimant, brought a complaint of pregnancy or maternity discrimination against Willerby Holiday Homes Limited. The employment tribunal struck out the complaint under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2024 as having no reasonable prospect of success.

I: 6018520/2024 and 6015760/2024: 6018520/2024

The claimant brought claims for sexual harassment, victimisation, whistleblowing detriment, health and safety detriment, and unfair dismissal against the respondent. The tribunal heard evidence over 8 days in April 2026 and deliberated in May 2026. All claims were dismissed as not well-founded in this liability judgment.

Primark Stores Ltd: 6012811/2025

The claimant brought complaints of unfair dismissal and direct race and/or religion discrimination against Primark Stores Limited following his dismissal. The tribunal found the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal was not well founded and dismissed his complaints of direct race and religion discrimination.

NHS England: 6004312/2024

The claimant claimed disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and victimisation against NHS England following a failed progression and redeployment process. The tribunal found that while aspects of the respondent's handling were unsatisfactory, the statutory tests under sections 15, 20 and 27 of the Equality Act 2010 were not established, and accordingly dismissed the claims.

Compass Cleaning Solutions Ltd: 6009532/2024

The claimant's claim against Compass Cleaning Solutions Ltd was struck out under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The tribunal had issued a warning letter on 27th January 2026 advising that the claim might be struck out due to non-compliance with previous tribunal orders and failure to actively pursue the claim. The claimant failed to respond to the warning letter, and the tribunal proceeded to strike out the claim on 28th May 2026.

Supernova Resourcing: 6010128/2024

The claimant's claim against Supernova Resourcing was struck out under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The tribunal issued a warning letter on 26 January 2026 notifying the claimant that it was considering striking out the claim due to lack of active pursuit and because the identity of the respondent was unknown. The claimant failed to respond by the deadline of 9 February 2026, and the tribunal proceeded to strike out the claim.

The Bishop Wheeler Catholic Academy Trust: 6014422/2026

The claimant's claim was struck out under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 because the claimant had been employed for less than two years and therefore lacked the qualifying period required to bring the claim. The claimant was given an opportunity to respond to a strike-out warning but failed to reply.

Kier Ltd: 6026175/2025

The claimant, a mixed race Commercial Administrator employed by Kier Ltd, brought claims for harassment related to race, victimisation, and direct race discrimination arising from her employment from November 2024 to July 2025. The tribunal dismissed all three claims as not well founded after a five-day hearing, finding no prima facie case of discrimination and no victimisation.

Leviat Ltd: 6005348/2024

At a preliminary hearing, the claimant's claims for constructive unfair dismissal and disability-related harassment were struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. The claimant was ordered to pay deposits of £150 each to continue pursuing claims of sex discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments.

Turning Tide: 6019321/2024

The claimant brought claims for breach of contract (while still employed), breach of GDPR, privacy and/or confidentiality against the respondent. The tribunal dismissed all claims for want of jurisdiction, finding it lacked power to hear them.

T B Whyte: 6016659/2026

The claimant applied for interim relief pending the determination of her claim of unfair dismissal against Thomas Boyde Whyte. The tribunal dismissed the application for interim relief.

London Healthcare Locums Ltd (in liquidation): 6032552/2025

The claimant presented a claim for unlawful wage deductions against London Healthcare Locums Limited (in liquidation). The respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The tribunal determined that unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages had been made and ordered the respondent to pay £5,747.50 gross.

ISS Mediclean Ltd: 6014314/2024

The claimant's claim for unfair dismissal, racial discrimination, harassment and whistleblowing detriment was struck out. The claimant failed to comply with case management orders made by Employment Judge Battisby and varied by Regional Employment Judge Jones, and had not communicated with the tribunal or respondent for over six months. The tribunal found that a fair final hearing would not be possible given the time constraints and lack of cooperation from the claimant.

PAB Coventry Ltd: 6046346/2025

The claimant's unfair dismissal complaint was struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success. The claimant lacked the minimum two years' service required by section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and did not fall within any of the exceptions set out in section 108(3). The claimant failed to respond to a strike-out warning letter and the claim was therefore struck out.

Cleanco Cleaning Services Ltd: 6036295/2025

This is a preliminary hearing in which the tribunal determined that the claimant was an employee of Cleanco Cleaning Services Ltd at the relevant time. The decision allows the claim to proceed to full merits hearing.

Halfords Autocentre: 6022080/2025

The claimant's employment claim against Halfords Autocentre was struck out under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The Tribunal found that the claimant had failed to comply with its orders and had not actively pursued the claim, and the claimant did not respond to a warning letter dated 18 March 2026 giving an opportunity to explain or request a hearing.

Chorlton Family Practice (“CFP”) and Others: 2401089/2024

The claimant, a locum GP at Chorlton Family Practice in Manchester, claimed she was subjected to detriments for making protected disclosures about concerns regarding another doctor's practice. The respondents conceded the disclosures were protected but disputed causation. The tribunal found all claims not well-founded, as the claimant failed to establish that the alleged detriments were because of her protected disclosures.

Redspot Care Ltd: 3200013/2025

The claimant presented a claim for unauthorised wage deductions. The respondent failed to submit a valid response on time. The tribunal determined the claim under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure and found the respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages, ordering payment of £7617.78.

Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust: 6014701/2026

The claimant, dismissed on 24 April 2026, applied for interim relief under section 128 ERA pending determination of her claim for automatic unfair dismissal for making a protected disclosure. The tribunal refused the application for interim relief.

City St Georges, University of London: 6007023/2025

The claimant brought a claim against City St Georges, University of London. The claim was dismissed by the tribunal.

G4S Secure Solutions (UK) Ltd: 2306833/2023

The claimant's discrimination, harassment and victimisation claims were dismissed following a three-day hearing. The respondent applied for a costs order, arguing the claimant acted unreasonably in pursuing claims with no reasonable prospect of success after receiving a costs warning email four days before trial. The tribunal awarded £3,500 in costs against the claimant, having regard to his limited financial means (take-home pay £1,750 pcm, debts £90k), but finding his decision to proceed was objectively unreasonable.

Learning Matters Trust Ltd and ARAG Legal Expenses Company Ltd: 2502221/2023

The claimant brought claims against Learning Matters Trust Ltd and ARAG Legal Expenses Company Limited. The proceedings were stayed by consent pending settlement ratification through ACAS COT3.

Linde MH UK Ltd: 6022998/2025

The claimant brought complaints of unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal against Linde MH UK Limited. The tribunal heard the case on 20 and 21 May 2026 and dismissed both complaints as not well founded.

Department for Work and Pensions: 2500990/2024

The claimant, employed by the Department for Work and Pensions, claimed she was constructively dismissed unfairly and subjected to disability-related harassment and discrimination. The tribunal found that the claimant had affirmed her contract of employment after May 2023, and therefore could not rely on earlier alleged breaches to establish constructive dismissal. The claims of unfair dismissal were dismissed as not well founded, and the Equality Act 2010 claims were struck out as being outside the three-month time limit with no just and equitable basis for extension.

BS Eaton Ltd: 1309098/2020

The claimant claimed unlawful deductions from his wages during a lay off period from April to August 2020 and a suspension period, when he was paid reduced lay off pay rather than full wages. The tribunal found that no implied term of contract permitted the respondent to lay off the claimant, and therefore the deductions from 22 June to 30 August 2020 were unlawful. The respondent was ordered to pay £4,755.58 in respect of the unlawfully deducted wages.

A Malik: 6032985/2025

The claimant claimed unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal against Ashan Malik. The respondent failed to present a response to the claim. The tribunal found both the unfair dismissal complaint and the wrongful dismissal complaint well-founded.

IJJI Hospitality Ltd: 2309722/2025

The claimant brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against IJJI Hospitality Ltd. The tribunal struck out the complaint because the claimant had been employed for less than two years, falling short of the statutory two-year qualifying period required by Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

Dolce Ltd: 6016504/2026

The claimant applied for interim relief against Dolce Limited. The tribunal found the application was not well founded and refused the application. No order for interim relief was made.

Middlesbrough DP Ltd: 2500740/2024

The claimant succeeded in his claim of unfair dismissal against Middlesbrough DP Limited. The tribunal awarded basic award of £1,673 and compensatory award of £15,004 (after applying a 20% Polkey reduction and 20% ACAS uplift), totalling £16,678.

The Crown Prosecution Service: 6020207/2025

The claimant brought claims against The Crown Prosecution Service for indirect disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, and failure to make reasonable adjustments. The tribunal heard evidence over five days and found all three claims were not well-founded.

London Borough Of Lambeth: 2304726/2020

The claimant's claim against London Borough of Lambeth was struck out following a warning letter sent on 11 April 2026 under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The tribunal found the claim had not been actively pursued and, after giving the claimant an opportunity to respond or request a hearing, the claimant failed to reply.

London Borough Of Lambeth: 2304727/2020

The claimant's claim against London Borough Of Lambeth was struck out under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 for failure to actively pursue the claim. The Tribunal issued a warning letter on 11 April 2026 giving the claimant an opportunity to respond or request a hearing, but the claimant failed to reply.

London Borough Of Lambeth: 2304729/2020

The claimant's claim against London Borough of Lambeth was struck out under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The tribunal found that the claim had not been actively pursued and, after giving the claimant an opportunity to respond to a warning letter dated 11 April 2026, the claimant failed to reply.

London Borough Of Lambeth: 2304714/2020

The claimant's claim against London Borough Of Lambeth was struck out following a warning letter sent under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The claimant failed to respond to the tribunal's notification that the claim appeared not to have been actively pursued.

London Borough Of Lambeth: 2304686/2020

The claimant's claim against London Borough of Lambeth was struck out under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 for non-pursuit. The tribunal issued a warning letter on 11 April 2026 giving the claimant an opportunity to respond, but the claimant failed to reply, resulting in the claim being struck out.

London Borough Of Lambeth: 2304696/2020

The claimant's claim against London Borough of Lambeth was struck out under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 because the claim had not been actively pursued. The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out but failed to respond.

NGeneration Ltd: 6034247/2025

The claimant brought a claim for unauthorised deductions from pay under Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal found the complaint well-founded, as the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages in August 2025 and September 2025. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £1,347.

Property Wealth Estate Ltd: 6009812/2026

The claimant presented a claim for unauthorised wage deductions for October and November 2025. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The tribunal determined the claim under rule 22 and found the respondent made unauthorised deductions totalling £2,806.13.