Browse recent Employment Tribunal decisions heard at Leeds.
£45,808.29 combined
Published decisions
Newest decisions first
Employer: EA Pharma3 Ltd
The claim was dismissed because the claimant failed to attend the hearing without providing any reason.
Reference: 1808624/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Young Foundations Ltd
Both claims were struck out because the tribunal lacked jurisdiction (one due to failure to extend time, the other due to no jurisdiction).
Reference: 6041476/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Alverthorpe St Paul’s CE (VA) School
The claimant's unfair dismissal claim succeeded, but the award was reduced for contributory fault and the Polkey chance of fair dismissal, and the parties agreed on remedy without specifying a sum in the judgment.
Reference: 6022364/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Serene Residential Care Ltd (In creditors' voluntary liquidation)
The respondent failed to pay the claimant the sums due for notice pay and holiday pay, so the claims were well founded and succeeded.
Reference: 6014097/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: The Secretary of State for Justice
The claimant succeeded on claims of failure to make reasonable adjustments (not allowing him to continue without attending violent incidents), discrimination arising from disability, and unfair dismissal, but lost on other reasonable adjustment claims.
Reference: 6008906/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: The Sheffield College
The complaint of breach of contract was not well founded and was dismissed.
Reference: 6045060/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Personal Assist South Yorkshire
The claimant was not a disabled person as defined by the Equality Act 2010, so the claim was dismissed.
Reference: 6028054/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: LCUK Bradford Ltd
The employer's claim for breach of contract was dismissed because the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear it.
Reference: 6044507/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Huntsman Pest Control Ltd (In Creditors Voluntary Liquidation)
The respondent failed to file a response, so the tribunal found most of the claimant's complaints well-founded, but the claim for unauthorised bonus deductions was dismissed and the energy bill claim was withdrawn.
Reference: 6014701/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Covers 33 Ltd
The complaint of constructive unfair dismissal was not well founded and was dismissed.
Reference: 6036096/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Iceland Foods Ltd
The claimant's claim of unfair dismissal failed and was dismissed by the Tribunal.
Reference: 6041798/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Leeds International Pianoforte Competition
The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed and subjected to unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of her disability, but liability only was determined; remedy will be decided at a separate hearing.
Reference: 6023770/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Brontel Ltd (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation)
The claimant was unfairly dismissed and the respondent breached contract by failing to provide proper notice.
Reference: 6042688/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: I
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.
Reference: 6018520/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Kirklees Metropolitan Council
The provided judgment text is incomplete, ending mid-sentence in the background facts, so the final verdict cannot be determined.
Reference: 1803977/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: The Crown Prosecution Service
All three claims of disability discrimination were dismissed as not well-founded.
Reference: 6020207/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Dawat-E-Islami
Both claims were dismissed because the tribunal found the employer genuinely believed the claimant committed gross misconduct, had reasonable grounds for that belief (based on the recording and admissions), carried out a sufficient investigation, and dismissal was a reasonable response.
Reference: 6025015/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Integrity Stainless and Alloy Ltd
Both claimants' claims of unfair dismissal succeeded, although the first claimant received no award due to a 100% Polkey reduction and contributory conduct.
Reference: 6020716/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Safe Haven Adolescent Care Group Ltd
The claimant succeeded on her claims of unfair dismissal and failure to make reasonable adjustments, but her claims of detriment for making a protected disclosure, victimisation, harassment, and unlawful deduction from wages were dismissed.
Reference: 1811237/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Secretary of State for Justice
The claims were either dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant or struck out by the Tribunal.
Reference: 6040908/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Sleep Factory Ltd (In Creditor’s Voluntary Liquidation)
The respondent failed to comply with statutory collective consultation requirements, so a protective award was made for the maximum 90-day protected period.
Reference: 1808087/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Babtooma Leeds Ltd
The claimant failed to respond to tribunal correspondence, lacked the requisite two years' service for an unfair dismissal claim, and did not attend the hearing, leading to both claims being struck out or dismissed.
Reference: 1806489/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Pier & Rose Ltd
The claim was dismissed because the claimant failed to attend the final hearing without prior notice or explanation.
Reference: 6008236/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: The Hall Thornton Dale Ltd
The claimant failed to prove that any alleged detrimental treatment was because of her protected act, as the evidence showed the manager had no issue with her work and the allocation of tasks was not linked to the grievance.
Reference: 1804451/2025 (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.