Browse recent Employment Tribunal decisions heard at Watford.
£98,706.06 combined
Published decisions
Newest decisions first
Employer: O’Loughlin Commercials Ltd
The tribunal found that the dismissal was not unfair, because the employer's conduct (including the lack of procedure) fell within the range of reasonable responses, or that any procedural steps would have been futile.
Reference: 3304564/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Department for Work and Pensions
The claim was dismissed because it was submitted out of time when it was reasonably practicable for it to have been submitted within the statutory time limit, so the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.
Reference: 6002110/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Mayfords Estate Agents Ltd
The employer was entitled under the contract to vary the disciplinary procedure for short service, so there was no breach of contract.
Reference: 6000317/25 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Caerus Lifecare Ltd
The claimant succeeded in her claims for unauthorised deductions from pay and redundancy payment, but withdrew her claims for unfair dismissal and holiday pay.
Reference: 6008242/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: JDS 64 Ltd (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation)
The claimant succeeded on all complaints including automatic unfair dismissal, TUPE failure, holiday pay, unauthorised deductions, and breach of contract, with total compensation awarded.
Reference: 3309081/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Kanki Turkish Meze and Cocktail Bar Ltd
The claim was dismissed under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 because the claimant failed to attend the hearing and did not properly pursue a postponement, leading the Judge to conclude he was not intent on pursuing his claims.
Reference: 6025147/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Priory Healthcare Ltd
The claimant won on wrongful dismissal (breach of contract) but lost on all other claims including unfair dismissal and disability discrimination.
Reference: 6007934/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Quantum Care Ltd
The claim was not struck out at the preliminary hearing, meaning it will proceed to a full merits hearing.
Reference: 3313881/2019 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Angard Staffing Solutions Ltd
The claims were not well-founded and were dismissed.
Reference: 6014295/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Bamboo Connect Ltd
The claimant was unfairly dismissed as the respondent failed to follow a fair procedure and the reason for dismissal was not established, and the respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages.
Reference: 3311314/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: BFT Mastclimbing Ltd
The claimant succeeded on liability as the tribunal found he was dismissed because of his protected disclosures, making the dismissal automatically unfair, and further that any redundancy process was unfair.
Reference: 3306629/24 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Northwest Associates Ltd
The claimant was unfairly dismissed because the redundancy process was procedurally flawed, but the tribunal found that a fair process would have resulted in dismissal anyway, thus limiting compensation to one week's net pay plus basic award and a section 38 award.
Reference: 3305427/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Butchers Pet Care Ltd
The Tribunal found that the claims for automatic unfair dismissal and pregnancy discrimination did not succeed.
Reference: 3315335/2023 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Itarmi UK Ltd
The claimant's claim of constructive unfair dismissal was dismissed, but the respondent was found to have made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's pay (with the amount to be confirmed).
Reference: 3309474/2023 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Tesco Stores Ltd
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's claim of unfair dismissal.
Reference: 3311377/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge and Others
The claims against the second, third, and fifth respondents were struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success, while the remaining claims against the first respondent continue to a final hearing.
Reference: 6010450/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Travis Perkins Trading Company Ltd
The complaint of unfair dismissal was well-founded, so the claimant won, but with a 25% reduction applied to the awards.
Reference: 6021417/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: West Hertfordshire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust and Others
The claims were struck out because the settlement agreement barred claims arising before 11 June 2024, the claim against Dr Halpin had no reasonable prospect of success due to lack of employment relationship, and the remaining claims were out of time or had no reasonable prospect of success.
Reference: 3302627/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Brunel University of London
The claimant's claims of direct religious discrimination, direct discrimination in shortlisting, and victimisation were all dismissed as not well-founded.
Reference: 3306361/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Tesco Stores Ltd
The Tribunal found that the claimant was not dismissed by the respondent, either under the statutory definition or otherwise.
Reference: 3301909/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Innovate Transport UK Ltd
The Tribunal found the claimant was a sub-contractor rather than a worker and that the respondent had correctly paid him based on the agreed drop rate.
Reference: 3301650/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
The respondent failed to present a valid response, so the Tribunal entered judgment in favour of the claimants for unpaid wages and/or notice pay.
Reference: 3306520/2025 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: Priory Central Services Ltd
The claimant succeeded on some direct disability discrimination claims but failed on others and on all harassment claims, while earlier claims were withdrawn.
Reference: 3303088/2024 (View detailed case summary — Pro Research)
Employer: British Airways plc
The Tribunal found that the complaint of unfair dismissal was not well-founded.
Reference: 3311332/2024 (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.