Unknown
Employer: Santander plc
All claims were struck out as they had no reasonable prospects of success.
Reference: 3303710/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Browse recent Employment Tribunal decisions heard at Cambridge.
£11,206.17 combined
Published decisions
Newest decisions first
Employer: Santander plc
All claims were struck out as they had no reasonable prospects of success.
Reference: 3303710/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Kettonby Care Ltd
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.
Reference: 6013990/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: BCA Logistics Ltd
The claimant succeeded on her reasonable adjustment claims in respect of two PCPs and on her s.15 and s.26 claims regarding Issue 5, but failed on all other discrimination claims and the unlawful deductions/holiday pay claims, with one harassment claim dismissed as out of time.
Reference: 3312261/2023 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: The Salvation Army Trustee Company
The complaint of unfair dismissal was found well-founded, but remedy has not yet been determined, and no compensation award has been made.
Reference: 3302568/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Bulldog Offshore Services Ltd (in liquidation)
The claim for unlawful deduction of wages succeeded.
Reference: 6006161/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: DHL Services Ltd
The claims were dismissed because the tribunal found no fundamental breach of contract by the respondent and no protected disclosures had been made, with the claimant's evidence being unreliable and the respondent's actions justified.
Reference: 3310751/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Readipop
The claimant won on unpaid holiday pay but lost on all other claims including unlawful deduction from wages, sick pay, expenses, and pension contributions.
Reference: 3300433/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Business Management Software Ltd and Automatic Data Processing Ltd
The claim was dismissed because the claimant voluntarily withdrew it on the eve of the final hearing, and the tribunal concluded that dismissal was in the interests of justice to prevent abuse of process.
Reference: 3313563/2023 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Norfolk County Council
All claims were dismissed or struck out because they were presented out of time or the claimant lacked the required two years' service.
Reference: 6012287 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
The claimant succeeded in obtaining a protective award due to the respondents' failure to consult over collective redundancies, but her other claims were dismissed or struck out for non-compliance and lack of pursuit.
Reference: 3306042/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Royal Mail Group Ltd
The claimant's complaint that he was subjected to detriment for making a protected disclosure was not well founded and was dismissed.
Reference: 3314928/2023 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Kettering General Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Both claims were dismissed because they were presented outside the primary limitation period and the claimant did not satisfy the tribunal that an extension of time should be granted.
Reference: 6016615/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: T.A.P (March) Ltd
Claim dismissed due to claimant's non-attendance at hearing under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
Reference: 6022696/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Brookwood Temporary Solutions Ltd
The Tribunal found that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages and breached its statutory duty to provide a written statement of employment particulars.
Reference: 3301995/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: AT Transport Solutions Ltd
The respondent failed to show a potentially fair reason for dismissal and the dismissal was procedurally and substantively unfair; additionally, the claimant was disabled and suffered discrimination arising from her disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and harassment.
Reference: 3306629/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Tempest Rentals (Stickly) Ltd
The Tribunal found that the Respondent made unauthorised deductions from the Claimant's wages and ordered repayment.
Reference: 6009357/2025 (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.