Browse recent Employment Tribunal decisions heard at Cardiff.
£3,162.20 combined
Published decisions
Newest decisions first
Employer: Cardiff and Vale University Local Health Board
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.
Reference: 1602431/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: MC Sims Ltd
The Tribunal found that the claimant's dismissal was automatically unfair under s. 104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Reference: 6005253/2026 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Proserve Logistics Ltd
The unfair dismissal claim was struck out due to insufficient qualifying service, the whistleblowing claim was withdrawn, and the discrimination claims continue to a final hearing; the claimant was found to be disabled due to depression.
Reference: 1603212/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Forward (Wales) Ltd
The claimant succeeded in her claims of unfavourable treatment due to disability and unfair dismissal, but her reasonable adjustments claim was dismissed.
Reference: 6017288/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: KONE plc
The complaint of unfair dismissal was not well founded and was dismissed.
Reference: 6038006/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Advanced Fire Protection Ltd
The constructive unfair dismissal claim succeeded, but all other claims (discrimination, harassment, flexible working) were dismissed.
Reference: 6010624/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Owens (Road Services) Ltd
The breach of contract claim was dismissed as not well founded, but the national minimum wage claim was reserved for a future hearing, resulting in a split verdict.
Reference: 1600414/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Zorba Delicacies Ltd
The claim was dismissed because the respondent's decision to stop offering shifts was not because of the claimant's disability; the actual comparator was not materially similar, and the respondent did not know nor could reasonably be expected to know of the claimant's autism.
Reference: 6014706/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Torfaen County Borough Council
All claims were dismissed because the discrimination claims were out of time and not just and equitable to extend, and in the alternative all claims were not well-founded.
Reference: 1603217/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: KG’s Cafe Ltd
The employer made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages, and the claim was upheld.
Reference: 6005249/2026 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Business in Focus Ltd
The Tribunal found that the Respondent did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that the Claimant was at a substantial disadvantage, as he only disclosed his condition six days before the assessment day and did not request any adjustments.
Reference: 6026378/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Creditsafe Business Solutions Ltd
The Tribunal found that the claimant's claim for unfair dismissal was not well-founded.
Reference: 1600006/2026 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Welsh Ambulance Service University NHS Trust
The claims relating to matters arising before August 2024 were struck out as they were out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend the period.
Reference: 6030528/2025 (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.