How the estimator works

The estimate is built from two sources:

1. Tribunal Intel database — published Employment Tribunal decisions, each with a case number and a decision date. The case number encodes the year the ET1 was filed, which lets us calculate how long each case took from filing to published decision.
2. MOJ Tribunal Statistics Quarterly (July–September 2025) — the Ministry of Justice publishes quarterly data on open caseload, receipts, and disposals. The latest figures show open caseload up 33% year-on-year and disposals down 10%, which means cases filed today will take longer than cases filed in 2024.

The estimate measures time from ET1 filing to published written decision — not time to the hearing itself.

In many cases the tribunal hears the evidence, then takes time to write up and publish the judgment. The hearing can take place weeks or months before the written decision appears. If you need to estimate when you will be in the hearing room, expect this to be earlier than the decision window the tool shows.

The published decisions do not include a field for which tribunal office or city handled the case. Country of jurisdiction — England & Wales or Scotland — is the only geographic dimension available in the data.

For each jurisdiction, we calculate three figures from 2024 filings in the database:

• P25 (25th percentile) — 25% of cases resolved faster than this. Used as the earliest estimate.
• Average — mean time from filing year to decision. Used as the most likely estimate.
• P75 (75th percentile) — 75% of cases resolved faster than this. Used as the latest estimate.

We use 2024 as the base year because it is the most recent year with a large enough sample of completed cases. Note that cases filed in 2024 which are still open are not in the dataset — the averages therefore represent the faster-resolving subset and likely understate the eventual true average for that cohort.

Discrimination cases take longer on average than unfair dismissal cases. The gap is consistent across both England & Wales and Scotland, and is a direct result of their greater complexity and the more demanding procedural requirements needed to handle them fairly.

The multipliers are calculated as: average months for that claim type ÷ unfair dismissal average (17.3 months), using all 2023–2024 cases with extracted claim type data.

Caveat: many cases have multiple claim types — a case tagged as both "unfair dismissal" and "disability discrimination" appears in both buckets. The multipliers are directional, not precise. Rows marked "est." are not data-derived.

The 2024 base figures reflect cases that have already resolved. But the tribunal backlog is growing — the MOJ's latest statistics show:

• Single ET claim receipts up 33% year-on-year (Q2 2025/26 vs Q2 2024/25)
• Single ET claim open caseload up 33% over the same period
• Single ET disposals down 10% over the same period
• Single claim open caseload at its highest ever level in the published timeseries

We apply a forward multiplier of 1.2× (20% uplift). This is a judgment figure, not a formula-derived number — the data does not produce an exact multiplier. We use 20% as a conservative estimate; the true impact could be higher if the backlog continues to grow.

Before an ET1 can be filed, claimants must go through ACAS early conciliation. Since December 2025, the mandatory window is 12 weeks (3 months).

The base figures in this tool measure from the ET1 filing date — i.e., after ACAS conciliation is complete. If you have already filed your ET1, no ACAS offset is added. If you have not yet filed, 3 months is added to reflect the conciliation period you still need to complete before filing.

This tool gives a statistical estimate, not a prediction. Key limitations:

• It estimates decision date, not hearing date. The written judgment is published after the hearing — sometimes weeks or months later.
• 2024 base figures skew fast. Only cases that have already concluded appear in the dataset. Longer-running 2024 cases are still open and excluded, pulling averages down.
• No sub-regional breakdown. The HMCTS case numbering system changed in 2024, making regional identification from case number prefixes unreliable across the dataset.
• Preliminary hearings add time. Many cases have one or more preliminary hearings before the full merits hearing — not captured here.
• Complex cases take much longer. Multi-day hearings are harder to list and can extend timelines significantly.
• Published decisions only. Cases that settle or are withdrawn without a judgment are not in the sample and likely resolve faster, meaning the true median for all claims is shorter than shown here.