Browse recent Employment Tribunal decisions heard at Newcastle.
£48,990.69 combined
Published decisions
Newest decisions first
Employer: Notch Durham
The unfair dismissal claim was struck out for lack of qualifying service, but the wrongful dismissal, unauthorised deduction from wages (tips), and failure to provide written particulars claims all succeeded.
Reference: 6015161/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Security Defence Group Ltd
The claimant's complaint of unlawful deduction from wages was well founded and the respondent was ordered to pay £230.
Reference: 6014019/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Sureserve Compliance North Ltd
The first claimant's direct sex discrimination claim succeeded in part, but all other claims by both claimants were dismissed, resulting in a split verdict.
Reference: 2500476/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Rosen (UK) Ltd
The claim was dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable time limit and it was reasonably practicable to do so.
Reference: 6042588/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Ms J Paterson (T/a Jacqui Paterson’s Veterinary Practice)
The respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages and failed to pay accrued holiday pay.
Reference: 6019835/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: National Care Network Franchising Ltd
All complaints were well-founded and the respondent was ordered to pay the claimant for notice pay, holiday pay, redundancy payment, and unauthorised deductions.
Reference: 6035258/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust
The Trust's policy requiring claimants to share a changing room with a biological male trans woman and its failure to address their concerns amounted to harassment and indirect sex discrimination, but other harassment allegations and victimisation claims were dismissed.
Reference: 2501192/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: National Care Network Ltd
The claimant succeeded on all four complaints: breach of contract for notice pay and holiday pay, redundancy payment, and unauthorised deductions from wages.
Reference: 6035260/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Cenergist Ltd (in administration)
The respondent failed to comply with the requirements of section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour (Consolidation) Act 1992, leading to a protective award.
Reference: 2501471/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Angela’s Law Ltd
The claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal, unpaid holiday pay, and breach of contract were all well-founded.
Reference: 2500982/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Northumberland County Council
The claim was dismissed because it was not presented within the time limit, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction.
Reference: 6034707/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Halo Hair Group
The claimant did not have the required two years of continuous service to bring an unfair dismissal claim, and the claim was struck out; later dismissed for non-attendance.
Reference: 6014313/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Fishers Services Ltd
The tribunal found no evidence that any of the alleged treatments were because of or related to the claimant's Polish nationality; all complaints were either struck out for lack of jurisdiction or dismissed as not well-founded.
Reference: 6019034/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Syft Online Ltd
The claimant lost both claims: the unfair dismissal complaint was not well-founded, and the disability discrimination complaint was dismissed because she was not a disabled person under the Equality Act 2010.
Reference: 6018699/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Jensen’s Cooperage Ltd
The claim was struck out because it had not been actively pursued by the claimant.
Reference: 2500724/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Jensen’s Cooperage Ltd
The claim was struck out because the claimant had not actively pursued it.
Reference: 2500722/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Jensen’s Cooperage Ltd
The claim was struck out because it was not actively pursued by the claimant.
Reference: 2500723/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Sporting Chance NE Ltd
The claimant succeeded on all claims because the respondent unfairly dismissed him for making protected disclosures, wrongfully dismissed him, made unlawful deductions, and owed holiday pay.
Reference: 2502367/2023 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: ASEL Temporary Security Solutions Ltd
All complaints were dismissed because the claimant failed to establish any less favourable treatment due to race, any protected act leading to detriment, and his contract was a zero-hours contract with no guaranteed minimum hours or entitlement to the claimed holiday pay or deductions.
Reference: 6000895/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: SNE Care Services Ltd
All claims were dismissed or struck out: unfair dismissal failed due to lack of qualifying service, and wrongful dismissal and race discrimination were brought out of time with no extension granted.
Reference: 6015726/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Learning Matters Trust Ltd and ARAG Legal Expenses Company Ltd
The claim was dismissed by consent after the parties reached a binding settlement agreement.
Reference: 2502221/2023 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Department for Work and Pensions
The unfair dismissal claims were not well founded, and the tribunal lacked jurisdiction over the Equality Act claims, which were struck out.
Reference: 2500990/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: The Happy Swim Company LLP
The claims for automatic unfair dismissal (constructive), breach of contract (notice pay), unauthorised deductions (training/mentoring), and victimisation were struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success; a deposit of £25 was ordered for the direct race discrimination claim.
Reference: 6000500/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Middlesbrough DP Ltd
The claimant's unfair dismissal claim succeeded because the respondent failed to demonstrate a fair reason for dismissal or adhere to a fair procedure.
Reference: 2500740/2024 (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.