Browse recent Employment Tribunal decisions heard at London South.
£202,594.76 combined
Published decisions
Newest decisions first
Employer: Ansa Care Ltd
The Tribunal found the claimant's complaints were not well-founded and dismissed all claims.
Reference: 6007982/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Currys Group Ltd
All complaints were struck out because the claimant had no reasonable prospect of establishing that the claims were presented in time or that the discrimination claims had any merit.
Reference: 2301901/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Royal British Legion
The Tribunal found that the claimant's claim for notice pay was not well-founded and therefore dismissed it.
Reference: 6043212/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Elivia Homes Ltd
The Tribunal found that the claimant's claim for breach of contract succeeded.
Reference: 6046325/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Cronos Protection Ltd
The respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages by failing to pay for 115 hours worked.
Reference: 2309843/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Cronos Protection Ltd
The respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages by failing to pay for 59 hours worked.
Reference: 2309844/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Red Handling UK Ltd
The claim was dismissed because it was presented out of time and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it, as it was not reasonably practicable to extend time.
Reference: 6028416/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Mr N Faulkner T/a The Drive Prep School
The Tribunal found that the reality of the working relationship, including personal service, control by the respondent, and mutuality of obligation, meant the claimant was an employee under s.230 ERA 1996.
Reference: 2309481/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: First Hydrogen Ltd and Others
The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was found to be well-founded by consent of the parties.
Reference: 6013801/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Econowise Drives and Controls Ltd
The Tribunal found the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages to be well-founded.
Reference: 6031266/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Krinkles UK Ltd (Continental Landscapes)
The claims were presented out of time and the Tribunal found no reasonable practicability or just and equitable grounds to extend the limits.
Reference: 2304167/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Support Services Leaders Ltd
The claimant's complaints of unauthorised deductions from wages and failure to provide a written statement were upheld.
Reference: 2300026/2026 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Mr C Charalambous (as executor of Mr J Charalambous) and Ms J Crossfield
The claimant's unfair dismissal claim against respondent 1 was dismissed, but her unfair dismissal, redundancy payment, notice pay, holiday pay, and statutory sick pay claims against respondent 2 succeeded.
Reference: 2302139/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: London Borough of Southwark
The tribunal dismissed both claims: the direct discrimination claim failed because the claimant did not prove the alleged remark was made, and the reasonable adjustments claim failed because the respondent had provided appropriate equipment and the claimant was not at a substantial disadvantage during the relevant period.
Reference: 2302098/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Saint Noir Ltd
The Tribunal found the complaints of unauthorised deductions from wages to be well-founded for all three claimants.
Reference: 2309730/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: AHK Security Solutions
The claim succeeded because the respondent failed to respond to the claim, leading to a default judgment under Rule 22.
Reference: 6035147/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Novadiscovery SA
The Respondent's response was struck out for failure to actively pursue the case, leading the Tribunal to find the claims of discrimination and victimisation well-founded.
Reference: 2302917/2022 (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.