Browse recent Employment Tribunal decisions heard at Watford.
£66,357.63 combined
Published decisions
Newest decisions first
Employer: Dorchester Heating Solutions Ltd
The claim was struck out because the claimant did not have at least two years' continuous service, which is a jurisdictional requirement for bringing an unfair dismissal claim.
Reference: 3303531/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Mars Petcare UK
The claimant did not have the required two years' continuous service to bring an unfair dismissal claim, so the complaint was struck out and the entire claim dismissed.
Reference: 6019837/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: British Airways plc
The claims of unfair dismissal, unlawful deduction from wages, and whistleblowing were dismissed for want of jurisdiction as they were presented out of time and the claimant failed to establish valid presentation or grounds for an extension.
Reference: 3311709/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Tesco Stores Ltd
The specific complaint alleging that 'lack of promotion' was race discrimination was struck out, while the other complaints were allowed to proceed.
Reference: 6014525/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Samworth Brothers Ltd
The Employment Tribunal found the complaint of unfair dismissal was well-founded, ruling that the claimant was unfairly dismissed by the respondent.
Reference: 6013728/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: One Stop Doctors Ltd
The claimant's claim for unfair dismissal was dismissed by Employment Judge Cowen.
Reference: 6004796/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Impera Italia Ltd
The employer failed to give the claimant a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations and proceeded with the disciplinary hearing in his absence, rendering the dismissal procedurally unfair, and also failed to provide contractual notice.
Reference: 6021687/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Witney and West Oxfordshire Food Bank
The ordinary unfair dismissal claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to insufficient service, but the automatic unfair dismissal claim was permitted to proceed.
Reference: 6007978/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: X3 Consulting Ltd
The claim was dismissed because the claimant had not been employed for the necessary two-year qualifying period to bring an unfair dismissal claim.
Reference: 6027371/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Primo Piatto Ltd
The claimant succeeded in part because the respondent failed to pay for two trial shifts, but the remainder of the claim was dismissed.
Reference: 6022310/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Hatwel Ltd and Mr V Singh
The claim was struck out because the claimant had no reasonable prospect of showing the claim was in time or that it was not reasonably practicable to present it in time.
Reference: 6019470/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: London Fire Commissioner
The complaint was dismissed because it was presented after the time limit and it was reasonably practicable to have presented it in time.
Reference: 3306138/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: YMCA St Paul’s Group
The claimant succeeded because the respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments, resulting in an award of £18,000 total compensation.
Reference: 3312579/2022 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Hertfordshire County Council
The claimant succeeded in her claim for disability discrimination due to the respondent's failure to make reasonable adjustments.
Reference: 3303392/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Fonthill Care (Harry Park) Ltd
The claim for direct disability discrimination by association in relation to dismissal succeeded, but the claim regarding being escorted from the premises was dismissed.
Reference: 6000584/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Restoration Revival Fellowship (a company Ltd by guarantee) T/a Alpha and Omega Nursery and Others
All claims were dismissed because the claimant's dismissal was not unfair, the discrimination claims were not well founded, and the wrongful dismissal claim failed.
Reference: 3311427/2023 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: St Bartholomew’s School
The tribunal found the dismissal unfair because the investigation was flawed (unbalanced, prejudged, incomplete) and the sanction of dismissal fell outside the range of reasonable responses.
Reference: 3311626/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: The Stunt Register Ltd T/a The British Stunt Register
All claims were dismissed on withdrawal, lack of jurisdiction, late presentation, or failure to prove financial loss.
Reference: 3302489/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: G1 Design Ltd
The claimant succeeded on all claims: unfair dismissal, unauthorised deductions, breach of contract, and holiday pay.
Reference: 3300913/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Papa Luigi (Franchise) 1990 Ltd
The claim was presented outside the primary time limit and it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented it in time, so no extension was granted and the claim was dismissed.
Reference: 6019692/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Kyldn Ltd
The claims were struck out because they had no reasonable prospect of success.
Reference: 3310747/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Fodabox Ltd
The complaint of unfair dismissal was well-founded, and the claimant also succeeded on breach of contract claims for notice pay and wages.
Reference: 6017246 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Aspire Academies Trust
The claimant was not unfairly dismissed and her claim had no reasonable prospect of success.
Reference: 6013860/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Aldi Ltd
The claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal was not well-founded and was dismissed.
Reference: 3302676/2025 (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.