Browse recent Employment Tribunal decisions heard at Manchester.
£130,224.55 combined
Published decisions
Newest decisions first
Employer: AJ&D Chapelhow (Cliburn) Ltd
The tribunal found that the claimant was fairly dismissed, so the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.
Reference: 6021400/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Performance Doorset Solutions Ltd
The complaint of unfair dismissal was well-founded and the claimant was unfairly dismissed.
Reference: 6004149/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Phase 2 Growth Ltd (No defence filed)
The claimant succeeded on the unlawful deductions from wages claim but the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed for lack of service, and the disability discrimination claim was not resolved.
Reference: 6027929/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: C Jacks and Others
The Employment Tribunal dismissed the claimant's claim for public interest disclosure detriments as not well-founded.
Reference: 6014290/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Palmers Patisserie Manufacturing Ltd and Others
The first respondent failed to present a valid response in time, and the judge determined the claim in accordance with Rule 22, finding that the claimant was unfairly dismissed and that the respondent made unauthorised deductions and failed to pay holiday entitlement.
Reference: 2401822/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Sonus Public Relations Ltd
All three complaints (whistleblowing detriment, wrongful dismissal, and constructive unfair dismissal) were found well-founded and succeeded.
Reference: 2404668/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: ANS Group Ltd
The claimant was constructively unfairly dismissed as the respondent's conduct amounted to a fundamental breach of contract entitling the claimant to resign.
Reference: 6041649/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Precious Little Ones Ltd
The claimant's claims were dismissed pursuant to Rule 47 because the claimant did not attend the hearing.
Reference: 6012013/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Greenwood & Coope Ltd
All complaints were found not well-founded and were dismissed by the Tribunal.
Reference: 2411502/2023 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: ADHD Foundation (In Voluntary Liquidation)
The claimant succeeded on claims for whistleblowing detriment, unfair dismissal, disability discrimination (reasonable adjustments and victimisation) but lost on sex discrimination and discrimination arising from disability.
Reference: 6009423/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Emdus Ltd
The respondent failed to present a valid response and was found liable for unlawful deductions from wages, breach of contract regarding notice, and unpaid holiday pay, resulting in a total award of £2,827.76.
Reference: 6023673/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Williams Motor Group (Williams BMW Liverpool)
The claimant's unfair dismissal claim was struck out for lack of qualifying service, and his other claims for bonus, holiday pay, and notice pay were dismissed as not well founded or lacking jurisdiction.
Reference: 6038251/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Duni Poppies Ltd
The claims of direct race discrimination were not well-founded and were dismissed.
Reference: 6014374/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Blackpool Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
The Tribunal found that the respondent did not breach its duty to make reasonable adjustments and the complaint of discrimination arising from disability was not well-founded, dismissing all remaining claims.
Reference: 2404615/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Westby Cleaning Services
The claimant succeeded in part (the respondent admitted owing £149.63 for 10.5 hours) but failed to prove the disputed 2.5 hours, so that part of the claim was dismissed.
Reference: 6041741/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Salford Software Ltd and Proofid Ltd
All of the claimant's complaints were dismissed because the tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct (dishonesty), not for making protected disclosures or on the grounds of sex, and he was not entitled to the bonus or holiday pay claimed.
Reference: 2400849/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: AstraZeneca UK Ltd
The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed for being presented out of time, but the discrimination claim was allowed to proceed after a just and equitable extension.
Reference: 2400285/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: HM Prison and Probation Service
The claims were struck out because they were not presented within the statutory time limit and there was no reasonable prospect of extending time on a just and equitable basis.
Reference: 2400580/25 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Bright HR Ltd
The claimant won his unfair dismissal claim but lost his disability discrimination claim, resulting in a split verdict.
Reference: 6008036/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Foundation Coffee House Ltd (in creditors' voluntary liquidation)
The unfair dismissal claim was struck out for lack of service, but the victimisation and breach of contract claims succeeded, resulting in a split outcome.
Reference: 6014186/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Connex Education Partnership Ltd
The Tribunal found the claims for less favourable treatment under the AWR 2010 and unauthorised deductions from wages were not well-founded.
Reference: 2402673/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Bayfield’s Group Ltd
The claimant was unfairly dismissed and the parties agreed on compensation of £18,000 by consent.
Reference: 2400450/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust
The claim was presented in time but not via a prescribed method; the Tribunal waived the requirement to comply with the Practice Direction, allowing the claim to continue to a final hearing.
Reference: 2404641/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Manchester City Council
The claimant's disability discrimination complaints were dismissed because they were presented outside the statutory time limit and it was not just and equitable to extend time.
Reference: 2411493/2023 (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.