Employment Tribunal decisions and outcome patterns in the Hospitality & Catering sector from the last 12 months.
Final Hospitality & Catering decisions with at least one determined claim.
Proportion of cases won or split/upheld in our database.
Cases lost or struck out due to procedural/jurisdictional issues.
Showing 35 cases from the last 2 months.
Browse the latest published decisions for employers represented in this sector sample.
Five claims struck out, one unfair dismissal claim remains ongoing.
Reference: 6011122/2025
The claimant succeeded on unfair dismissal and direct race discrimination, while harassment and victimisation claims were partially successful, resulting in a split overall outcome.
Reference: 6004933/2024
The respondent failed to respond, and the tribunal found the claims well-founded, ordering payment of £240.30 gross.
Reference: 6012130/2026
The tribunal upheld the claimant's unfair dismissal claim, applied a 20% contributory fault reduction, declined a Polkey reduction, and adjourned remedy because the respondent did not consent to judgment on the agreed sums.
Reference: 4100993/2026
The Tribunal found that none of the claimant's communications amounted to protected disclosures, and even if they had, the alleged detriments were not caused by them, so all claims were dismissed.
Reference: 8000608/2026
The respondent failed to present a response, and the judge was satisfied on the available material that the claimant was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment of £7,117.60.
Reference: 2501362/2026
The claimant's claim of direct age discrimination was not well-founded and was dismissed.
Reference: 6002459/2024
Both claims were dismissed as the claimant failed to establish the alleged failures to pay notice pay and unlawful deductions from wages.
Reference: 6027290/2025
The claimant succeeded in her notice pay and holiday pay claims but her other complaints were dismissed.
Reference: 1402501/2025
The claim was presented out of time and it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented it within the primary time limit, so the Tribunal has no jurisdiction.
Reference: 6001509/2026
The Tribunal found that the respondent's actions were not because of the claimant's race or in retaliation for protected acts; the dismissal and treatment were based on genuine performance and team fit concerns during probation.
Reference: 8001277/2025
The claimant succeeded in obtaining a protective award for the respondent's failure to consult on redundancies.
Reference: 4100409/2026
The respondent failed to present a response and the tribunal found the claimant entitled to a protective award for failure to consult on redundancies.
Reference: 4100408/2026
The claimant succeeded in obtaining a protective award for failure to consult on redundancies.
Reference: 4100406/2026
The claimant's claims were struck out because he failed to provide witness statements, did not identify the alleged discriminator, and his conduct was unreasonable, making a fair hearing impossible and the claims lacking reasonable prospects.
Reference: 3300393/2023
The claimant succeeded in obtaining a protective award for failure to consult on redundancies.
Reference: 4100420/2026
The respondent failed to present a response, and the tribunal found that the claimant was entitled to a protective award for failure to consult on redundancies and to unpaid holiday pay.
Reference: 4100419/2026
The claimant succeeded in obtaining a protective award for the respondent's failure to elect employee representatives and consult collectively on redundancies.
Reference: 4100418/2026
The claimant succeeded on both claims because the respondent failed to present a response and the evidence showed the required failures.
Reference: 4100417/2026
The Tribunal found the respondent failed to consult and made a protective award for 90 days.
Reference: 4100416/2026
The claimant succeeded in obtaining a protective award of 90 days' remuneration due to the respondent's failure to consult.
Reference: 4100415/2026
The claimant succeeded in obtaining a protective award of 90 days' pay for the respondent's failure to consult on redundancies.
Reference: 4100414/2026
The respondent failed to present a response and the Tribunal found that the claimant was entitled to a protective award for failure to consult on collective redundancies.
Reference: 4100413/2026
The tribunal found the respondent failed to consult employee representatives on redundancies and made a protective award of 90 days' remuneration.
Reference: 4100412/2026
The respondent failed to present a response, leading to a default judgment in favour of the claimant on all claims.
Reference: 4100411/2026
The tribunal found that the respondent failed to comply with its statutory duty to consult, and made a protective award of 90 days' remuneration.
Reference: 4100410/2026
The claimant succeeded on a technical breach of the right to itemised pay statements but obtained no compensation; all other claims were dismissed or withdrawn.
Reference: 2600161/2026
Claimant had less than two years' service and did not qualify for unfair dismissal, with no exceptions, so the claim had no reasonable prospect of success.
Reference: 6000599/2026
The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £2,258, indicating the claimant succeeded in their claim.
Reference: 6042653/2025
The respondent failed to file a valid response, and the Legal Officer found the claims of unauthorised deductions and breach of contract (notice pay) to be well-founded.
Reference: 6005886/2026
The claim was dismissed because the claimant failed to attend the hearing without explanation, and the tribunal was satisfied that dismissal was appropriate given the history of non-attendance and non-compliance.
Reference: 6025176/2025
All claims were dismissed after a full merits hearing; the harassment claim did not meet the statutory threshold and the breach of contract claim lacked evidence of a contractual variation.
Reference: 3301811/2023
The tribunal found the complaint well founded because the respondent failed to elect employee representatives and consult before making collective redundancies, and made a protective award of 90 days' remuneration.
Reference: 4103919/2025
The claims of automatically unfair dismissal under section 100(1)(c) and section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996 were not well founded and were dismissed.
Reference: 6023528/2025
The claimant's complaints were dismissed because the employer had effectively provided payslips via a digital link (constructive giving) and the holiday pay was fully paid after termination, so no unlawful deduction remained.
Reference: 6002451/2026