Browse recent Employment Tribunal decisions heard at London South.
£113,506.05 combined
Published decisions
Newest decisions first
Employer: Whiskey & Wealth Club Ltd
The claim was struck out because the Employment Tribunal did not have territorial jurisdiction to hear it.
Reference: 6046739/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Southwark Council
The claimant's claim of constructive unfair dismissal failed and was dismissed.
Reference: 6009737/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
The claimant was not an employee of Sixmen Limited at the material time, so her claims for redundancy pay and holiday pay were dismissed.
Reference: 6004854/2026 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Topaz Ltd
The claimant lost on all claims except for unlawful deductions from wages and failure to provide a written statement, for which she was awarded a total of £1,268.94.
Reference: 2301649/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Richmond Food & Supply Ltd and Others
The claimant's complaints of unauthorised deductions, breach of contract (notice pay and pension), and unpaid holiday pay were all well-founded against the first respondent employer.
Reference: 6040979/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: KPI Group Ltd
The respondent failed to attend the hearing and the claimant's claim was upheld.
Reference: 6027977/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Harrods Ltd
The provided judgment text is incomplete; it confirms the claimant won on wrongful dismissal (accepted by respondent) but does not include the outcome on the unfair dismissal claim or any remedy award.
Reference: 6005182/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Hurstmere School
All complaints were found not well-founded and were dismissed.
Reference: 2303124/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
Both complaints were dismissed as not well-founded.
Reference: 2301022/2022 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: The London Borough of Croydon
The respondent was ordered to pay compensation after the claimant's pregnancy and maternity discrimination claims were successful.
Reference: 2301815/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Kosy Living Ltd
The Respondent failed to present a valid response, resulting in a default judgment where the Tribunal upheld the Claimant's claims for unpaid wages, bonus, consequential losses, and notice pay.
Reference: 2300689/2026 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: APX Estate Agents Ltd
The claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and maternity discrimination succeeded because the respondent failed to attend the hearing and provided no evidence to rebut the claimant's unchallenged account that she was dismissed without notice due to her pregnancy/maternity leave.
Reference: 6009619/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: John Lewis plc
The claim was struck out because the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide any of the legal complaints.
Reference: 6004954/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: People’s Partnership Ltd and NASA Umbrella Ltd
The claimant's claims were not well founded and were dismissed against both respondents.
Reference: 6008020/2026 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust
The claim was dismissed because it was out of time, meaning the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear it.
Reference: 6003530/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Secom plc and others
The claimant succeeded on two specific detriment claims (cessation of verbal contact and a humiliating email) but all other claims including constructive unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, and wrongful dismissal were dismissed.
Reference: 2305255/2023 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Paypacket Ltd and Mr A Isiko
The Claimant's claims succeeded against the Second Respondent because the evidence of payslips and the schedule of loss proved the unpaid wages and holiday pay, and the Second Respondent took no part in the proceedings.
Reference: 6003430/2026 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: The Home Organisation Ltd
The claim of constructive unfair dismissal failed because the tribunal found no fundamental breach of contract by the employer and that the employment ended by mutual consent.
Reference: 6007371/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Abbey DLD Colleges Ltd
The claims were validly settled under a settlement agreement, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear them and they were dismissed.
Reference: 6042321/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
The tribunal dismissed all disability-related claims because the claimant was not found to be disabled at the relevant times.
Reference: 2307364/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Secretary of State for Business and Trade and Bishop Challoner School (in voluntary liquidation)
The claimants won on protective award, some unfair dismissal, breach of contract, and wrongful dismissal claims, but lost on reasonable adjustments claim and some claims were withdrawn, resulting in a split outcome.
Reference: 2308768/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: C Beeson T/a The Grove Ferry Inn
The claimants succeeded in their claims for unpaid holiday pay and the respondent was ordered to pay compensation, including an uplift for failure to provide written particulars.
Reference: 2309157/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Ospinamaine Ltd
The claimant's claim for unauthorised deductions from wages and breach of contract regarding bonus pay was dismissed as not well-founded.
Reference: 6008002/2026 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Chance Further Support
The claim was dismissed because the Tribunal found it did not have jurisdiction to determine it, as the claimant was not an employee of the respondent.
Reference: 6007521/2025 (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.