Latest tribunal judgments.

Miss S Gillyon v LA's Community Care Ltd: 6018434/2025

The claimant brought complaints regarding unpaid wages following the closure of her employer at the end of February 2025. She had 11 years' service. The tribunal, proceeding by Rule 22 judgment without attendance of either party, found the claimant entitled to unpaid wages, holiday pay, redundancy payment, and notice pay.

Mr P Knowles v London North Eastern Railway Ltd: 6001613/2025

Mr Knowles claimed disability discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments arising from his fibromyalgia. His claim was presented on 16 January 2025, well outside the primary three-month time limit which expired 27 June 2024. The tribunal considered whether to extend the time limit on a just and equitable basis.

H Brown v Temple Grove Academy Trust: 2304639/2020

The claimant's claim against Temple Grove Academy Trust was struck out following the tribunal's warning on 31 January 2026 that it was considering striking out the claim under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 on the basis that it had not been actively pursued. The claimant failed to respond to the tribunal's letter giving an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out or to request a hearing, and the claim was therefore struck out.

S Best v Kent County Council: 2304245/2020

The claimant's claim against Kent County Council was struck out under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 because it had not been actively pursued. The Tribunal sent a warning letter on 14 March 2026 giving the claimant an opportunity to respond, but the claimant did not reply.

W Cullen v Kent County Council: 2304246/2020

The claimant's claim against Kent County Council was struck out under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The Tribunal had written to the claimant on 14 March 2026 warning of its intention to strike out the claim due to lack of active pursuit, and the claimant failed to respond to the opportunity to explain or request a hearing.

Mr P Wendolowski v DHL E-Commerce UK Ltd and Others: 1600421/2025

Mr Wendolowski brought claims of unfair dismissal, unlawful deduction from wages, breach of contract, unpaid holiday pay, direct race discrimination and race-related harassment against DHL E-Commerce UK Ltd and others. All claims were dismissed on time limit grounds: the unfair dismissal and contractual claims were out of time and it was reasonably practicable to present them within the deadline; the discrimination and harassment claims were out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend the time limit.

Miss M Szawica v B Braun Sterilog Ltd and Synergy Health (UK) Ltd T/a Steris Instrument Processing: 6014831/2024

The claimant's claim against the first respondent (B Braun Sterilog Ltd) was dismissed by consent following a transfer of the claimant's employment to the second respondent (Synergy Health (UK) Ltd t/a Steris Instrument Processing). The second respondent accepted liability for the claim if it succeeds.

Mrs J Ward v Sternberg Reed LLP: 3205464/2022

Mrs Ward, a solicitor dismissed from her role in the Clinical Negligence Department in September 2022, brought claims including unfair dismissal, direct race discrimination, victimisation, disability discrimination, and indirect sex discrimination. At a preliminary hearing, the employment judge struck out the disability-related claims and the indirect sex discrimination/part-time workers discrimination claims on the basis that they had no reasonable prospect of success.

D Gooch v C Wood & Son (Luton) Ltd: 6037274/2025

The claimant claimed a right to a redundancy payment. The tribunal found the claimant had been employed for less than two years, which is below the statutory minimum qualifying period under section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claim was struck out.

K Hall v Synergy Associates Ltd: 6004200/2025

The claimant, Karl Hall, brought claims for unfair dismissal, breach of contract in relation to notice pay, and unlawful deductions from wages against Synergy Associates Ltd. The tribunal found that all claims were submitted out of time and accordingly had no jurisdiction to hear them.

Mr N Mills v Stephensons: 6020243/2024

Mr Mills claimed unfair dismissal, holiday pay and breach of contract against Stephensons, a law firm. The tribunal found that his employment terminated on 14 February 2022 when he signed a redundancy agreement and thereafter entered into a Consultancy Agreement, making him self-employed rather than an employee. The claims were dismissed as the unfair dismissal and notice pay claims were presented out of time and the holiday pay claim was not well-founded.

Ms T Nembhard v Royal Borough of Greenwich: 6017834/2024

The claimant applied for reconsideration of a preliminary hearing judgment on disability status, arguing that the judge decided the case without access to an MRI scan from 8 January 2020 which the NHS trust had refused to disclose. The tribunal refused the reconsideration application, confirming the earlier decision on the basis that reconsideration applications are limited exceptions to finality and should not be used to re-litigate matters already decided.

Mr T Adeleye v Milestone Global Resources Ltd: 6046182/2025

The claimant brought claims relating to unpaid wages and accrued holiday pay. The respondent paid all sums owed to the claimant during the proceedings. The tribunal dismissed all claims as there were no further sums to compensate.

Mr C Rodrigues v The London Borough of Lambeth: 6019181/2024

This is a reconsideration judgment concerning Mr Rodrigues' application to reconsider an earlier Employment Tribunal decision regarding his sick pay and holiday pay entitlements against The London Borough of Lambeth. The claimant sought reconsideration on grounds that the tribunal misconstrued sick pay entitlement provisions and failed to award holiday pay, but the tribunal refused the application as it did not meet the threshold for reconsideration in the interests of justice.

J Gallaway v Caretech Foundation (Cambian group): 6048630/2025

The claimant complained of unfair dismissal against Caretech Foundation (Cambian group). The tribunal struck out the complaint because the claimant had less than two years of service, failing to meet the statutory requirement under Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

Ms A Brooker v The Nail and Beauty Zone Ltd: 2302916/2024

The tribunal considered whether to allow the respondent to amend its reply to add a statutory defence of legitimate aim and proportionality in an indirect discrimination claim, nearly 18 months after being ordered to do so by Employment Judge Evans. The tribunal rejected the amendment application, finding the respondent had failed to comply with the mandatory order through its own default and that allowing the amendment at such a late stage would cause significant prejudice to the claimant. The tribunal also considered preliminary issues regarding ACAS early conciliation scope and redaction of medical documents.

M Matthieu v Luton Junior School and Medway Council: 2305379/2020

The claimant's claim 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 21 February 2026 giving the claimant an opportunity to respond, but the claimant did not reply.

C Brenchley v Kingfisher Community Academy Primary: 2305339/2020

The claimant's claim against Kingfisher Community Academy Primary was struck out under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 for failure to actively pursue the claim. The Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to respond to a warning letter dated 21 February 2026, but the claimant did not reply.

Mr E Otite v Serco Ltd: 6011386/2024

The claimant brought complaints against Serco Limited which were heard over three days in April 2026. The tribunal found the claimant's complaints were not well founded and dismissed them.

Ms H L Mitchell v Akari Care Ltd: 2500989/2025

Ms H L Mitchell claimed unfair dismissal against Akari Care Limited. The tribunal heard the case on 10 April 2026 at Newcastle Employment Tribunal. The claim was dismissed as not well founded.

A-R Sahih El‑Islam Tayar v London & Quadrant Housing Trust: 6039494/2025

The claimant, representing himself, brought a claim of unfair dismissal against London & Quadrant Housing Trust. The tribunal heard evidence on 9 and 10 April 2026. The claim was dismissed as not well founded.

Mr E Amoo v London Underground Ltd and Ms S Anderson: 6039650/2025

Mr E Amoo brought a claim for unfair dismissal against London Underground Limited and Ms S Anderson, alleging constructive dismissal. The tribunal found that the claimant was not constructively dismissed and dismissed the claim. Ms S Anderson was removed as a respondent as she was not the claimant's employer.

Mr M Aslam v John Lewis plc: 6009627/2025

Mr Munir Aslam claimed unfair dismissal against John Lewis plc. The tribunal found the dismissal was unfair but reduced awards by 25% for the claimant's contributory conduct, while increasing the compensatory award by 10% for the respondent's failure to comply with the ACAS Code of Disciplinary Procedures. The claimant was awarded £6,825 basic award and £18,719.55 compensatory award.

Mr M Fiaz v Home Office: 1305012/2025

The claimant sought to amend his claim form to add a disability discrimination complaint approximately 30 months after the last alleged incident and on the eve of the final hearing. The tribunal refused to extend time, finding that the claimant must have been aware of the OHS report in 2021 confirming his thyroid condition qualified as a disability under the Equality Act 2010, and that he had not acted promptly or provided good reason for the substantial delay.

Mr R Carthy v Ms J Milner T/a Bryngwyn Stallions: 1601864/2025

The claimant brought claims of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, discrimination under sections 13, 15, and 26 of the Equality Act 2010, and victimisation under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found all claims were brought outside the statutory time limits and that it was reasonably practicable to have brought the unfair and wrongful dismissal claims in time, and that it was not just and equitable to extend time for the discrimination and victimisation claims.

Miss A Khan v The Bronze Spoon Ltd: 3306347/2024

Miss A Khan, a Muslim employee, claimed direct discrimination on grounds of religion, race and age, and automatic unfair dismissal following her dismissal from The Bronze Spoon Ltd. The tribunal found all discrimination and unfair dismissal claims not well-founded, but upheld her claim for breach of contract in relation to notice pay, awarding £223 representing one week's notice pay.

A Byrne v Alliance Property Holdings: 6012688/2025

The claimant's employment claim against Alliance Property Holdings was struck out under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The Tribunal found that the claimant had failed to comply with a previous Order and had not actively pursued the claim, and the claimant did not respond to a warning letter or request a hearing to explain why the claim should not be struck out.

Mr C Bennett v Homeease Care Solutions Ltd: 3305572/2024

Mr Bennett was employed as Operations Director of a small family-run care company. He was dismissed following an investigation into allegations of misappropriation of funds using a company credit card and insubordination. Employment Judge George found the dismissal unfair because the investigation process was outside the range of reasonable responses, particularly because the claimant was not given access to key evidence relied upon by the decision-makers before the disciplinary hearing.

A MacDonald v Secretary of State for Justice: 6018161/2025

Alex MacDonald claimed unfair dismissal and disability discrimination against the Secretary of State for Justice. The tribunal heard the case over three days in April 2026. All claims were dismissed as not well-founded.

E Barnes v NV Timber Stables Ltd: 6030489/2025

The claimant presented a claim for unlawful wage deductions. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The tribunal found the respondent made unauthorised deductions by failing to pay for work done in March and June 2025 and for unpaid holiday entitlement.

Mrs D Price-Cooke v First Complete Ltd: 6025622/2025

Mrs D Price-Cooke brought claims of whistleblowing detriment, unfair dismissal, disability discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments against First Complete Limited. All claims were presented outside the normal time limits. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the whistleblowing and unfair dismissal claims to have been presented in time and therefore lacked jurisdiction. The tribunal also found it was not just and equitable to extend time for the disability discrimination claims and consequently dismissed all claims.

Mr J Cook v Pinnacle Finance and Property Group Ltd: 6019741/2025

The claimant brought claims for unauthorised deductions from wages relating to unpaid wages arrears and commission payments between May 2024 and May 2025. The tribunal found in favour of the claimant on both claims for deductions, awarding £8,760.60 for wages arrears and £8,231.88 for commission payments. The claimant withdrew claims relating to holiday pay and notice pay, which were dismissed.

Mr M Bassett v Excel Plastering (Ilford) Ltd: 6019798/2024

The claimant's claim of unfair dismissal succeeded. The tribunal found the respondent could and would have fairly dismissed the claimant by reason of redundancy on 28 November 2024 with proper notice, and reduced the compensatory award accordingly. The claimant's claims for breach of contract and unlawful deduction of wages also succeeded, but the claim for holiday pay was dismissed.

Mr N Waller v East Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust: 6022803/2025

The claimant brought complaints under TUPE regulations and for unauthorised deductions from wages. The tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to determine the TUPE complaints and dismissed them, but allowed the unauthorised deductions claim to proceed to a final hearing.

Mrs J John-Lewis v Intuitive Surgical Ltd: 3301886/2025

Mrs J John-Lewis claimed unfair dismissal against Intuitive Surgical Ltd. The tribunal found that the claim was not presented within the applicable time limit and that it was reasonably practicable to do so. The claim of unfair dismissal was dismissed.

Miss T Johns v BDW Trading Ltd and D Barford: 1301389/2025

This is a preliminary hearing to determine the employment status of the Second Respondent (R2) and whether he was acting as an agent of the First Respondent (R1) when supervising the Claimant, an apprentice. The Tribunal found that R2 was a self-employed contractor and not an employee or worker of R1, but was acting as R1's agent when supervising the Claimant as part of R1's obligation to provide on-site apprenticeship training.

Mr R Hayes v Simpson Strong-Tie UK and Ireland: 6027418/2025

Mr Hayes claimed unfair dismissal against Simpson Strong-Tie UK & Ireland. The claimant had been employed for less than two years. The tribunal struck out the complaint as the claimant lacked the statutory two-year qualifying period required under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

K Robertson v Adura Marketing Ltd: 6037893/2025

The claimant brought claims for unlawful wage deductions, wrongful dismissal, and holiday pay entitlement against Adura Marketing Limited. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the tribunal made determinations under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure. The claimant was awarded £4,186.32 in total for unauthorised deductions, wrongful dismissal damages, and unpaid holiday, while the unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed due to lack of qualifying continuous employment.

Ms J Bowley v Althaus Digital: 6042984/2025

Ms J Bowley applied for reconsideration of an Employment Judge's decision refusing her application for interim relief. The application was considered under Rule 68 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The tribunal examined the claimant's arguments regarding an alleged factual error but the document is incomplete and does not contain the full judgment outcome.

C Mcnay v Novocastrian: 2501022/2025

The claimant claimed a redundancy payment. The tribunal found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years, which is below the two-year minimum requirement under section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claim was struck out as the claimant had no legal right to a redundancy payment.