Sector Report
Healthcare Tribunal Data Analysis
Latest legal precedents and outcome patterns in the Healthcare sector based on our 12-month database analysis.
345Cases Analysed (Last 12 Months)
Historical Healthcare decisions from our database catalogue.
37%Success Factor
Proportion of claims won or split/upheld in our database.
63%Dismissal Rate
Claims lost or struck out due to procedural/jurisdictional issues.
↑ Strongest IndicatorUnfair Dismissal (45% Success)
↓ Weakest IndicatorDiscrimination (0% Success)
Search by Claim Type
Showing 39 cases from the last 2 months.
2600557/2024 • 16 Jul 2026
won
The Tribunal found the dismissal was unfair because the employer failed to follow its own disciplinary policy and constitution, the investigation was inadequate, and the decision to dismiss was outside the range of reasonable responses given the claimant's open use of vehicles with management approval and the lack of any clear policy prohibition.
Legal Issues (5)
- Whether the dismissal was fair under section 98(4) ERA 1996
- focusing on the reasonableness of the employer's belief
- the adequacy of the investigation
- whether dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses
- and whether the employer followed a fair procedure including compliance with its own disciplinary policy and the 'Just and Learning Framework'.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
1808624/2024 • 13 Jul 2026
struck_out
The claim was dismissed because the claimant failed to attend the hearing without providing any reason.
Legal Issues (1)
- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules – dismissal of claim due to non-attendance of a party.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6006144/2024 • 13 Jul 2026
other
The claimant withdrew specific complaints of detriment on grounds of protected disclosures, and those complaints were dismissed; the remaining complaints are unaffected and not yet determined.
Legal Issues (2)
- Whether the claimant suffered detriments because of making protected disclosures; the judgment only addresses a partial withdrawal and dismissal of certain complaints
- leaving other complaints unaffected.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
1602431/2024 • 8 Jul 2026
lost
The claim was dismissed because the claimant failed to prove that the decisions were taken because of the protected act, rather than because of genuine concerns about her conduct identified in the tribunal judgment.
Legal Issues (1)
- Whether the decisions to include and maintain allegations derived from the earlier tribunal judgment amounted to unlawful victimisation contrary to section 27 of the Equality Act 2010.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6019835/2025 • 8 Jul 2026
won
The respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages and failed to pay accrued holiday pay.
Legal Issues (1)
- Unauthorised deductions from wages under the Employment Rights Act 1996; failure to pay holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
8002300/2025 • 7 Jul 2026
won
The Tribunal exercised its discretion to extend time because it was just and equitable to do so, having found that the claimant genuinely misunderstood the deadline and there was no significant prejudice to the respondent.
Legal Issues (3)
- Time limit for discrimination claims under section 123 Equality Act 2010; just and equitable extension; assessment of prejudice
- credibility
- and the balance of factors.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
1306301/2024 • 6 Jul 2026
split
Claimant won unfair dismissal but lost other claims; compensation limited to basic award due to Polkey reduction.
Legal Issues (1)
- Time limits for presenting claims; unfair dismissal; Polkey reduction; protected disclosure; basic award calculation.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6035258/2025 • 6 Jul 2026
won
All complaints were well-founded and the respondent was ordered to pay the claimant for notice pay, holiday pay, redundancy payment, and unauthorised deductions.
Legal Issues (1)
- Breach of contract for notice pay and holiday pay; entitlement to a statutory redundancy payment under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996; unauthorised deductions from wages.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
2501192/2024 • 6 Jul 2026
split
The Trust's policy requiring claimants to share a changing room with a biological male trans woman and its failure to address their concerns amounted to harassment and indirect sex discrimination, but other harassment allegations and victimisation claims were dismissed.
Legal Issues (3)
- Harassment related to sex and/or gender reassignment (s.26 Equality Act 2010)
- indirect sex discrimination (s.19)
- and victimisation (s.27).
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6011467/2024 • 3 Jul 2026
won
The claimant was unfairly dismissed by the respondent.
Legal Issues (1)
- Unfair dismissal
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6017057/2024 • 1 Jul 2026
lost
All complaints of sex discrimination, harassment, and victimisation were dismissed as not well-founded.
Legal Issues (3)
- Whether the claimant was subjected to direct sex discrimination
- harassment related to sex
- and victimisation.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6003686/2025 • 29 Jun 2026
other
The application to strike out the respondent's response was refused; the claim continues.
Legal Issues (1)
- Application to strike out respondent's response under Rule 37; preparation time order under Rule 77.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6016023/2024 • 29 Jun 2026
split
The respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages, failed to pay contractual notice pay, and failed to pay accrued holiday pay, resulting in successful claims on those grounds but dismissal of other claims.
Legal Issues (3)
- Unauthorised deductions from wages
- breach of contract (notice pay)
- holiday pay entitlement.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6003530/2025 • 26 Jun 2026
jurisdiction_dismissal
The claim was dismissed because it was out of time, meaning the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear it.
Legal Issues (2)
- Whether the claim for unauthorised deductions from wages was brought within the statutory time limit; the Tribunal held it was not
- resulting in dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6013990/2025 • 24 Jun 2026
lost
The claim was dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable time limit, and it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have done so.
Legal Issues (1)
- Time limits for presenting a claim; whether it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6004796/2025 • 22 Jun 2026
lost
The claimant's claim for unfair dismissal was dismissed by Employment Judge Cowen.
Legal Issues (1)
- Unfair dismissal claim dismissed following oral judgment.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
1603463/2025 • 18 Jun 2026
split
The claimant succeeded on one claim of disability discrimination (failure to allow her to leave work early as a reasonable adjustment) but all other claims were dismissed.
Legal Issues (5)
- Disability discrimination (failure to make reasonable adjustments)
- protected disclosure (whistleblowing)
- unfair dismissal
- victimisation
- time limits for presenting claims.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6007446/2025 • 17 Jun 2026
struck_out
The claim was dismissed because the claimant failed to attend the hearing without providing any explanation.
Legal Issues (1)
- Rule 47 dismissal for failure to attend hearing; no substantive issues considered.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
8002409/2025 • 16 Jun 2026
won
The dismissal was procedurally unfair because the respondent failed to consult with the claimant before making her redundant and did not adequately consider alternative employment.
Legal Issues (2)
- Whether the dismissal was for a potentially fair reason (redundancy) and whether the procedure followed was fair under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- including consideration of alternative employment and consultation.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
2304408/2023 • 12 Jun 2026
won
The dismissal was procedurally unfair, but the compensatory award was reduced to zero after applying an 80% Polkey reduction and a 50% contributory fault reduction, and the claimant's wage and holiday pay claims were dismissed.
Legal Issues (1)
- Procedural unfairness in dismissal; Polkey reduction (80%) for chance of dismissal even with fair procedure; 50% contributory conduct reduction; unlawful deduction from wages and holiday pay claims.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6016187/2025 • 11 Jun 2026
split
The claimant withdrew 16 specific complaints, but other complaints remain unaffected, resulting in a split verdict.
Legal Issues (1)
- Withdrawal of specific complaints under section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996; protected disclosure detriment.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6043049/2025 • 9 Jun 2026
lost
The tribunal found that the claimant resigned/retired from employment with the first respondent on 15 March 2024 and thereafter worked as an independent contractor, so there was no dismissal, and the tribunal lacked jurisdiction over the second respondent due to no ACAS Early Conciliation certificate.
Legal Issues (1)
- Employment status (employee vs independent contractor) after 15 March 2024; whether there was a dismissal; jurisdiction regarding the second respondent due to lack of ACAS Early Conciliation certificate; time limits for bringing a claim.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
1600370/2025 • 8 Jun 2026
struck_out
The claim was struck out because the claimant failed to comply with a Tribunal order and did not actively pursue the claim, and did not respond to a warning letter.
Legal Issues (1)
- Strike out under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 for non-compliance with a Tribunal order and failure to actively pursue the claim.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6014290/2024 • 5 Jun 2026
lost
The Employment Tribunal dismissed the claimant's claim for public interest disclosure detriments as not well-founded.
Legal Issues (2)
- Whether the claimant made a qualifying protected disclosure under s.43B ERA 1996
- and whether she suffered detriment on the ground of that disclosure under s.47B ERA 1996.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
2600420/2025 • 4 Jun 2026
lost
The complaint of unfair dismissal was not well founded.
Legal Issues (1)
- Unfair dismissal; application to amend claim.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
2601509/2025 • 4 Jun 2026
lost
The Tribunal found the dismissal was fair because the employer had a genuine reason (capability due to long-term sickness), conducted a reasonable investigation and consultation, and the decision to dismiss fell within the band of reasonable responses.
Legal Issues (5)
- Whether the dismissal for long-term ill health was fair under s.98 ERA 1996
- focusing on the employer's reason
- the band of reasonable responses
- adequacy of consultation
- and medical investigation.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6012145/2026 • 3 Jun 2026
other
The claimant's application for interim relief was refused; no substantive verdict on the main claim was reached.
Legal Issues (1)
- Interim relief criteria under employment law; no substantive determination on the underlying claim.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
2301275/2019 • 3 Jun 2026
split
The claimant succeeded only on the claim of direct race and sex discrimination and harassment regarding the Dual Diagnosis lead role; all other claims (including constructive unfair dismissal) were dismissed, and a remedy hearing is pending.
Legal Issues (5)
- Direct race discrimination
- direct sex discrimination
- harassment related to race and sex
- constructive unfair dismissal
- breach of contract (notice pay and holiday pay).
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6041634/2025 • 1 Jun 2026
other
This is an interim relief judgment, not a final determination of the substantive claim; the claimant's application succeeded, but the substantive claim has not yet been decided, so this is classified as 'other'.
Legal Issues (1)
- Interim relief application under s128 Employment Rights Act 1996; consideration of whether the claimant has a reasonable prospect of success on the ground that the reason (or principal reason) for dismissal was whistleblowing.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
2303117/2024 • 1 Jun 2026
won
The claimant was unfairly dismissed and awarded a total remedy of £15,914.73.
Legal Issues (1)
- Unfair dismissal; remedy calculation including basic and compensatory awards.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6018520/2024 • 29 May 2026
lost
All of the claimant's claims (sexual harassment, victimisation, whistleblowing detriment, health and safety detriment, unfair dismissal, and automatically unfair dismissal) were dismissed as not well-founded.
Legal Issues (1)
- Key legal issues included: limitation under s.123 EqA 2010 and s.48 ERA 1996; whether sexual harassment occurred; whether protected acts were made; whether disclosures qualified as public interest disclosures; whether the claimant suffered detriment because of protected acts/disclosures; whether the dismissal was fair under s.98 ERA 1996 and automatically unfair under s.103A ERA 1996.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6009423/2025 • 29 May 2026
split
The claimant succeeded on claims for whistleblowing detriment, unfair dismissal, disability discrimination (reasonable adjustments and victimisation) but lost on sex discrimination and discrimination arising from disability.
Legal Issues (2)
- Protected disclosures under section 47B and 103A Employment Rights Act 1996; unfair dismissal; disability discrimination (failure to make reasonable adjustments
- victimisation); dismissal of sex discrimination and section 15 claim.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
3313551/2023 • 28 May 2026
other
The tribunal found that the complaints were not presented within the primary time limit, but it was not reasonably practicable to do so, and they were presented within a further reasonable period, so the claims will proceed to a full hearing.
Legal Issues (1)
- Whether the claims were presented within the applicable time limit; whether it was reasonably practicable to present them in time; whether they were presented within a further reasonable period.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6004312/2024 • 28 May 2026
other
The judgment text is incomplete, ending mid-sentence in the 'Issues' section, so no substantive verdict or award can be determined.
Legal Issues (6)
- Discrimination arising from disability (s.15 EqA 2010)
- Failure to make reasonable adjustments (ss.20-21 EqA 2010)
- Victimisation (s.27 EqA 2010)
- Time limits (s.123 EqA 2010)
- Disability knowledge
- Just and equitable extension
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6014253/2025 • 28 May 2026
jurisdiction_dismissal
The Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the claimant did not have the required two years' qualifying service for an ordinary unfair constructive dismissal claim.
Legal Issues (1)
- Jurisdiction; qualifying period of continuous employment for unfair dismissal; constructive dismissal under section 95(1)(c) ERA 1996.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6007934/2024 • 28 May 2026
split
The claimant won on wrongful dismissal (breach of contract) but lost on all other claims including unfair dismissal and disability discrimination.
Legal Issues (6)
- Wrongful dismissal (breach of contract)
- unfair dismissal
- direct disability discrimination (s13 EqA)
- disability-related harassment (s26 EqA)
- failure to make reasonable adjustments (ss20-22 EqA)
- discrimination arising from disability (s15 EqA).
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6002313/2025 • 27 May 2026
split
The claimant succeeded on a breach of contract claim for dismissal without notice but failed on race and sex discrimination claims.
Legal Issues (1)
- Race and sex discrimination claims under the Equality Act 2010; breach of contract for dismissal without notice.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
1603761/2024 • 26 May 2026
lost
All substantive claims of disability discrimination were dismissed as not well-founded, and the unfair dismissal claim was withdrawn for lack of jurisdiction.
Legal Issues (5)
- Jurisdiction for unfair dismissal claim presented before termination; disability discrimination under sections 13
- 15
- 20/21
- 26
- and 27 of the Equality Act 2010.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6014148/2026 • 26 May 2026
lost
The Claimant's application for interim relief failed and was dismissed.
Legal Issues (1)
- Application for interim relief; the claimant's application failed and was dismissed.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
Data sources
Decisions are sourced from official GOV.UK Employment Tribunal publications.
Important: Summaries and statistics are automated. Always verify against the original decision documents.