Employment Tribunal decisions and outcome patterns in the Public Sector sector from the last 12 months.
Final Public Sector 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 45 cases from the last 2 months.
Browse the latest published decisions for employers represented in this sector sample.
All claims were withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed by the Tribunal.
Reference: 6020902/2024
All claims were dismissed on the merits after a full hearing; the Tribunal found no unlawful treatment or breach of the relevant regulations.
Reference: 6012100/2024
The claim was dismissed as not well founded.
Reference: 2306823/2023
All claims of unfair dismissal, discrimination (including direct discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and victimisation), and harassment were dismissed after a full merits hearing.
Reference: 6005496/2024
The tribunal held that judicial proceedings immunity applied to the decisions to dismiss the claimants, and that the EU law-based interpretation in P v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis no longer applies after Brexit, so the claims were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Reference: 1303890/2025
Wrongful dismissal claim struck out (lost); other claims remain ongoing, resulting in a split substantive outcome.
Reference: 1801462/2024
All of the claimant's claims were struck out.
Reference: 6004706/2026
The claimant's claims were dismissed because he failed to attend the preliminary hearing without adequate explanation, constituting a deliberate and disrespectful disregard of tribunal procedures.
Reference: 6007641/2025
The entire claim was dismissed because the whistleblowing claim lacked a discernible basis and the disability discrimination claims were out of time.
Reference: 6001777/2026
One claim was dismissed as out of time (final loss) and the other was allowed to proceed (not finally determined), resulting in a split overall outcome.
Reference: 6011655/2025
All claims struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success.
Reference: 1805012/2025
The tribunal dismissed the direct race discrimination claim in its entirety, finding that the claimant had not established primary facts from which an inference of race discrimination could be drawn and that the respondent's actions were based on genuine performance and progression concerns.
Reference: 6020211/2024
The Tribunal found no discrimination or harassment as a matter of law, and the wage deductions were authorised by the claimant's contract, so all claims were dismissed on the merits.
Reference: 6004827/2024
Claims against individual respondents were dismissed because they were not the employer; the claim against the London Borough of Harrow remains ongoing.
Reference: 3300016/2022
The claimant succeeded on direct sex discrimination but the claim of direct race discrimination was dismissed.
Reference: 6023226/2024
All claims of race discrimination, harassment and discriminatory constructive dismissal were dismissed on the merits after a full hearing.
Reference: 3306924/2024
The claimant failed to attend the preliminary hearing and provided no explanation or engagement, leading to dismissal of all claims.
Reference: 6037529/2025
The claim was dismissed because it was presented out of time and the Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the Claimant to have submitted it in time.
Reference: 1601501/2026
The Tribunal found that the claim for direct age discrimination was not well-founded and dismissed it.
Reference: 6006418/2024
All claims of direct race discrimination, harassment related to race, and victimisation were dismissed on the merits after a full hearing.
Reference: 3308186/2023
The Tribunal found the dismissal was fair because the respondent had a reasonable belief in the misconduct, conducted a reasonable investigation, and the decision to dismiss was within the range of reasonable responses.
Reference: 8000298/2026
The unfair dismissal claim was struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service, and the discrimination claims were allowed to proceed after time limit extension.
Reference: 2300124/2025
The claimant succeeded on one victimisation claim but failed on other victimisation allegations and all sexual harassment claims, with remedy for the successful claim still to be determined.
Reference: 1402789/2024
The Claimant succeeded in having the physical disability of ACL damage recorded by consent, but claims based on the alleged mental disability of stress/anxiety/depression were dismissed for lack of disability while claims based on physical impairments remain outstanding.
Reference: 6022434/2025
The claim was dismissed in its entirety because the claimant failed to attend the preliminary hearing and did not provide sufficient evidence to justify a postponement or to show that the claims should be allowed to proceed out of time.
Reference: 1600983/2026
The Tribunal found the respondent had a genuine belief in the claimant's misconduct, reasonable grounds based on multiple witness accounts, a reasonable investigation despite some delay, and that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.
Reference: 6018279/2025
All complaints were found not well-founded and dismissed.
Reference: 6021283/2024
The Tribunal found that the claimant has a disability and made a protected disclosure, but these are preliminary determinations only; the substantive claims have not been finally decided.
Reference: 8001815/2025
All active Equality Act claims failed because the claimant was not placed at a substantial disadvantage by the absence-reporting PCP, the call did not amount to harassment, and the record of discussion was not unfavourable, not disability-related and was justified.
Reference: 8002436/2025
All claims were dismissed because the whistleblowing detriment claim was time-barred and the constructive unfair dismissal claim failed as the claimant did not resign in response to a breach and had affirmed the contract.
Reference: 8001857/2025
All claims were dismissed because the claimant was not an employee or worker for the purposes of the relevant protective legislation, the reasonable adjustments claim was out of time, and the wage claim failed on the facts as she was paid the agreed rate.
Reference: 6024279/2025
The claimant was not disabled during the relevant period, so her claims for failure to make reasonable adjustments were dismissed.
Reference: 3305830/2023
All claims were dismissed as out of time, lacking jurisdiction, or having no reasonable prospects of success.
Reference: 6021196/2024
All claims were dismissed: the reasonable adjustment claim was time-barred despite a breach being found, and the discrimination arising from disability claim was dismissed on the merits as proportionate.
Reference: 2406721/2024
The tribunal found that the claimant was constructively and unfairly dismissed and awarded compensation.
Reference: 6013439/2025
Both complaints of indirect disability discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments were dismissed as not well-founded.
Reference: 6012971/2024
All claims were dismissed: claims against the third and fourth respondents on withdrawal, and claims against the first and second respondents failed on the merits because the tribunal found no detriment on the ground of protected disclosures.
Reference: 3308913/2023
The claimants failed to show their work as Business Advisers was like work to that of Account Managers – the roles were materially different in content, responsibility and time allocation.
Reference: 1304212/2024
The claime was dismissed and struck out because the claimant failed to attend hearings, failed to comply with tribunal orders, and conducted the proceedings unreasonably, rendering a fair trial impossible.
Reference: 6021733/2025
The claimant succeeded on limited allegations of harassment and victimisation but failed on the majority of her race discrimination claims.
Reference: 6015012/2024
The first claimant's indirect discrimination claim was struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success, and her application to add a victimisation claim was refused.
Reference: 3300929/2024
The interim relief application was presented out of time, and the claimant failed to show it was not reasonably practicable to present it earlier, so the rejection was confirmed.
Reference: 6028045/2026
The Claimant failed to prove that her impairments of ILO, DBPD, asthma, and GORD had a substantial and long-term adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities.
Reference: 6029870/2025
All claims were dismissed as not well-founded.
Reference: 2600460/2024
The Tribunal found the Respondent's investigation and decision to dismiss for gross misconduct were within the range of reasonable responses, and the Claimant failed to provide credible evidence to account for the missing work hours.
Reference: 6038116/2025