Browse recent Employment Tribunal decisions heard at Bristol.
£130,100.78 combined
Published decisions
Newest decisions first
Employer: G3 Systems
The complaint of holiday pay was not well-founded because the respondent did not make an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's final salary payment.
Reference: 1402079/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Poole Property Holdings Ltd (In Administration)
The respondent's response was struck out for non-compliance with disclosure orders and failure to pursue the case, and the claimant's claims for unpaid wages and holiday pay were found well-founded.
Reference: 6038061/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Linx Christian Youth Trust
The respondent failed to file a response and did not attend the hearing, so judgment was entered for the claimant by default.
Reference: 6036694/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: L Broad
The claimant succeeded in her claim for unauthorised deductions from wages, but her unfair dismissal claim was struck out due to insufficient service.
Reference: 6030549/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Winnens 1929 Ltd
The claimant's claims for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and holiday pay were well founded and succeeded because the respondent failed to attend or defend the claims and the evidence supported the claimant's case.
Reference: 1402227/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Swindon Borough Council
The claimant's claim of constructive unfair dismissal failed because the alleged breaches, even where admitted, did not objectively amount to a fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, and the claimant had not resigned in response to any such breach.
Reference: 6024780/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Stockbrook Capital Ltd
The claimant succeeded on two claims of unauthorised deductions and one breach of contract claim, but other deduction claims were dismissed.
Reference: 6021439/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Entangled Positions Ltd
The claimant's claims were upheld because the respondent failed to attend or properly defend the claims, and the undisputed evidence showed a fundamental breach of contract by non-payment of wages.
Reference: 6024726/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Historic England
All remaining claims were not well founded and were dismissed; the tribunal also found that claims (except unfair dismissal) were out of time and it would not be just and equitable to extend time.
Reference: 6002213/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Lidl Great Britain Ltd
The tribunal found that the claimant's claims of unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal were not well founded and dismissed them.
Reference: 6029833/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Secretary of State for Justice
The claimant's complaints of harassment and health and safety detriment were withdrawn, and the direct sex discrimination claim was dismissed as not well founded.
Reference: 6008071/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Jamkam Ltd (In Creditors Voluntary Liquidation)
The claimant succeeded on constructive unfair dismissal, unauthorised deductions, and breach of contract, but the holiday pay claim was dismissed, resulting in a split verdict.
Reference: 1401443/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Bournemouth Cycleworks Ltd (In Creditors Voluntary Liquidation)
The claims were dismissed and struck out because the claimant failed to attend the final hearing and did not actively pursue his complaints.
Reference: 6026850/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
The Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the claimant did not have the required two years' qualifying service for an ordinary unfair constructive dismissal claim.
Reference: 6014253/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: John Lewis plc
All claims were found not well founded and were dismissed.
Reference: 6002696/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: National Tennis Association CIC
The tribunal implied a contractual term that the claimant was entitled to be paid for additional hours worked outside her core duties, and accepted Mr Paxton's evidence that 38 hours were owed.
Reference: 6017588/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Snows Motor Group Ltd
The claimant succeeded because the employer's dismissal was procedurally unfair and wrongful, as it failed to properly investigate the customer's abusive behaviour and relied on insufficient evidence, with the tribunal finding contributory fault of 15%.
Reference: 6021346/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Sterling Facilities Management (UK) Ltd
All claims were dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant resigned and his complaints of unfair dismissal, breach of contract, and unlawful deduction were not well-founded.
Reference: 1400080/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Edam Group Ltd (In Administration) and The Secretary of State For Business and Trade
Claimants failed to provide any evidence or attend the hearing, so the tribunal dismissed all claims.
Reference: 1401224/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: The Secretary of State
The claim was struck out because the claimant failed to comply with tribunal directions (no witness statement, non-attendance) and a further hearing was disproportionate given the claim's low value and poor prospects of success on employment status.
Reference: 6021904/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Computershare Investor Services plc
The unfair dismissal claim was struck out due to insufficient service, and the discrimination claim was dismissed as out of time with no grounds for a just and equitable extension.
Reference: 6010455/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Principles Recruitment Care Agency Ltd
The claims were found to be well-founded after the Respondent failed to submit a timely response to the proceedings.
Reference: 1401920/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd
The respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages due to erroneous grade changes and pay rate adjustments, and the claim was well-founded.
Reference: 6029371/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Nasa Umbrella Ltd / Nasa Group (Nasa Umbrella and Nasa Consulting)
The unfair dismissal claim was struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service, and the breach of contract claim was dismissed as not well-founded.
Reference: 6019263/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Search the full case database by keywords, case details, similar facts and compensation awarded.
Case details come from published tribunal decisions. Always check the official decision before relying on a result.