Browse recent Employment Tribunal decisions heard at London East.
£72,432.16 combined
Published decisions
Newest decisions first
Employer: Royal Mail Group Ltd
The claimant succeeded on three harassment claims but lost all other claims, including constructive unfair dismissal and most reasonable adjustment and discrimination complaints.
Reference: 3204647/2022 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: PP Management Ltd
The claimant did not attend the hearing and failed to provide a witness statement, leading to dismissal under Rule 47.
Reference: 6007585/2026 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Richan Care Ltd
The claimant failed to prove it was not reasonably practicable to present his claim within the statutory time limit, and even if it were, he did not present it within a reasonable period thereafter, so the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.
Reference: 6033591/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Mr Cosmetics Ltd
The respondent dismissed the claimant without any investigation, without putting allegations to her, and without following a fair process, making the dismissal unfair and wrongful.
Reference: 6007218/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Hooky St Coffee Co Ltd
The claimant succeeded in claims for unauthorised deductions, notice pay, and written particulars, but the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to insufficient continuous employment.
Reference: 6033315/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: The Vocational Academy Essex (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation)
The case was dismissed under rule 47 because none of the claimants attended the hearing and they had failed to comply with previous orders to provide necessary information.
Reference: 3200253/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Advance Secured Solutions Ltd
All three claimants succeeded in their claims for unpaid wages and holiday pay because the respondent failed to pay them and did not attend the hearing to contest the claims.
Reference: 3200786/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Manor of Groves Ltd
The claimant succeeded on unfair dismissal but lost on the reasonable adjustments claim, and remedy has not yet been determined.
Reference: 6017291/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Precise Care Solutions Ltd
The claimant succeeded on all complaints because the respondent made unauthorised deductions, breached contract regarding notice and holiday pay, and failed to pay the statutory redundancy entitlement.
Reference: 6038516/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Relltek Ltd
The claimant's claims for unfair dismissal, unlawful deduction of wages, and wrongful dismissal failed because the tribunal found the respondent's performance concerns were genuine and the dismissal was fair.
Reference: 6009880/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Delamode Anglia Ltd
All claims were dismissed under Rule 47 because the claimant failed to attend the hearing and did not respond to the tribunal's attempts to contact her.
Reference: 3200736/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Stephens Place
The claim was dismissed because the claimant failed to attend the hearing for the second time without notice, despite a prior strike-out warning.
Reference: 3200091/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Tribu Hair Studio Ltd
The respondent failed to pay the claimant's outstanding wages (as calculated by their own accountant) and the agreed bonus balance, with no valid contractual basis for withholding either.
Reference: 6032196/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Burro E Salvia Ltd (In liquidation)
The respondent made unauthorised deductions, breached contract by failing to give notice, failed to pay holiday pay, and dismissed the claimant by reason of redundancy without making the required payment.
Reference: 6036476/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Clacton Montessori Day Nursery and Preschool Ltd
All three complaints (unfair dismissal, whistleblowing detriment, and disability discrimination) were found to be well-founded and succeeded.
Reference: 3202158/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Gadcet Properties Ltd
The Tribunal found the Claimant was dismissed (not by mutual agreement) and the Respondent failed to show a potentially fair reason or follow a fair procedure, making the dismissal unfair.
Reference: 6031786/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: The Commissioners of HM Revenue and Customs
The claimant succeeded on two reasonable adjustment claims (chair and vertical mouse) but lost on all other claims including unfair dismissal, harassment, and other reasonable adjustment complaints.
Reference: 3201430/2023 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Age UK East London
The claimant's claim of constructive dismissal was not well-founded; the Tribunal found the claimant was not unfairly dismissed.
Reference: 6040145/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Barts Health NHS Trust
The complaint of unfair dismissal was well-founded because the respondent did not act reasonably due to procedural failings, but the compensatory award was reduced by 90% under Polkey and no future loss was awarded due to failure to mitigate.
Reference: 6031742/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Retrospective Scooters Ltd
The claim was dismissed because the claimant failed to attend the hearing or provide a satisfactory explanation for their absence.
Reference: 6009190/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Lighthouse Pharmacy Ltd
The Respondent was found liable for wrongful dismissal, unlawful deductions of wages, and failure to provide employment particulars.
Reference: 6003225/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: London College of Professional Studies Ltd
The claim was dismissed because the Tribunal had no jurisdiction as the claimant failed to obtain an ACAS early conciliation certificate before presenting his ET1.
Reference: 3200088/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Green Man Medical Centre
The substantive claims for unfair dismissal and breach of contract were dismissed, although the judge issued a declaration that the respondent failed to provide a timely itemised pay statement.
Reference: 6006943/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Openreach Ltd
The tribunal found that the respondent's actions did not constitute a fundamental breach of contract and the claim for constructive unfair dismissal failed.
Reference: 3201591/2023 (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.