Direct Race Discrimination
Employer: Sky UK Ltd
The complaints of direct race discrimination were not well-founded and were dismissed.
Reference: 2301995/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Browse recent Employment Tribunal decisions heard at London South.
£52,632.58 combined
Published decisions
Newest decisions first
Employer: Sky UK Ltd
The complaints of direct race discrimination were not well-founded and were dismissed.
Reference: 2301995/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Supreme Education Ltd
The Tribunal found that the claimant's claims of unlawful discrimination, wrongful dismissal, and unauthorised deductions of statutory maternity pay were all well-founded and succeeded.
Reference: 6014130/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Mansfield Sports Group Ltd (in voluntary liquidation)
The tribunal dismissed the claims because they were brought outside the statutory time limits and it was not reasonably practicable to bring them within a reasonable period thereafter.
Reference: 2300085/2026 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Grovereeve Knightsbridge Ltd
The respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages and failed to pay accrued holiday pay on termination.
Reference: 6034822/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Orama Design and Build Ltd
The respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages.
Reference: 2310037/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Orama Design and Build Ltd and Meath Group
The claim for unauthorised deductions was upheld against the first respondent but dismissed against the second respondent.
Reference: 2310039/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: LCUK Richmond Ltd
The dismissal was procedurally unfair, but the compensatory award was reduced to zero after applying an 80% Polkey reduction and a 50% contributory fault reduction, and the claimant's wage and holiday pay claims were dismissed.
Reference: 2304408/2023 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: FD Copeland & Sons Ltd
The claimant's claim for unfair dismissal succeeded, but his claims for breach of contract (bonus), whistleblowing detriment/automatic unfair dismissal, and all discrimination claims were dismissed.
Reference: 2306528/2023 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Transforming Support (South London) Ltd
The claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal were well founded because the employer's decision to dismiss for falsifying attendance records was not reasonable in the circumstances, though the claimant's conduct contributed to the dismissal.
Reference: 2309587/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Adventure Forest Ltd and Others
The claimant succeeded only on victimisation claims against the first and third respondents, while all other claims were dismissed.
Reference: 2305590/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux
All complaints were not well-founded and were dismissed by the tribunal.
Reference: 2305494/2023 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Pimlico Plumbers
The claimant's claims were struck out in their entirety because he failed to comply with Tribunal disclosure orders, acted unreasonably, and frustrated a fair trial by attending from a jurisdiction where he could not give evidence.
Reference: 6022623/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Nando’s Chickenland Ltd
The claim was struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success in respect of extending the time limit to present the claim.
Reference: 6036956/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Hidden Hearing Ltd and Demant A/S
The tribunal found that the claimant resigned/retired from employment with the first respondent on 15 March 2024 and thereafter worked as an independent contractor, so there was no dismissal, and the tribunal lacked jurisdiction over the second respondent due to no ACAS Early Conciliation certificate.
Reference: 6043049/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: The Secretary of State for Business and Trade and Dutemann UK Ltd
The claimants' complaints against the first respondent were not well-founded and were dismissed.
Reference: 2306655/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Biox Systems Ltd
The claimant won on multiple claims (unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, discrimination, victimisation, etc.) but lost on her flexible working claim which was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Reference: 2301900/2022 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Decision Focus UK Ltd
The Tribunal dismissed all disability discrimination claims because the claimant did not have a disability as defined by section 6 of the Equality Act 2010.
Reference: 6006361/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Doggy Base (Meopham) Ltd
The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed as not well founded, but the breach of contract claim for notice pay succeeded.
Reference: 2305554/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: S Dibben and others
The claimant succeeded only on the claim of direct race and sex discrimination and harassment regarding the Dual Diagnosis lead role; all other claims (including constructive unfair dismissal) were dismissed, and a remedy hearing is pending.
Reference: 2301275/2019 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Teledyne FLIR
The Tribunal found that the Claimant was not dismissed but had voluntarily resigned, and that none of the alleged discriminatory acts or failures occurred, or if they did, they were not because of her disability.
Reference: 2303862/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Lambeth Elfrida Rathbone Society
The respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages by failing to pay for holidays accrued but not taken at the end of employment.
Reference: 6027737/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Consigned Sealed Delivered Ltd and Mr G Marwan
The claims of unfair dismissal, automatic unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, unauthorised deductions, and breach of contract/service agreement were struck out as scandalous because they relied upon an illegal arrangement to defraud HMRC, making the contract tainted by illegality.
Reference: 6006541/2026 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Secretary of State for Justice
The complaints of direct race discrimination and harassment related to race were not well-founded and were dismissed.
Reference: 6015945/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Kent and Medway NHS and Social Partnership Trust
The claimant was unfairly dismissed and awarded a total remedy of £15,914.73.
Reference: 2303117/2024 (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.