Browse recent Employment Tribunal decisions heard at Liverpool.
£1,218.51 combined
Published decisions
Newest decisions first
Employer: Asda Stores Ltd
The claim was struck out under Rule 47 because the claimant failed to attend the preliminary hearing and had not progressed the case.
Reference: 2400226/2024
Employer: Fuels Transport & Logistics Ltd
All complaints were dismissed as not well-founded after a full merits hearing.
Reference: 2412130/2023
Employer: University of Salford
The breach of contract claim was struck out due to the claimant's scandalous conduct and persistent non-compliance, while the remaining claims were not struck out but are subject to an unless order for witness statement exchange.
Reference: 6011717/2024
Employer: P Gosling
The claim was dismissed because neither party attended the final hearing, and no reasons were given for non-attendance, leading to dismissal under Rule 47.
Reference: 6040169/2025
Employer: Wirral Metropolitan College
The claimants' claims for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination were dismissed because they were presented out of time and no extension was granted.
Reference: 2402347/2025
Employer: Wax on Wax off Women Ltd
The respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages and failed to pay holiday pay, so the claimant's complaints were well-founded.
Reference: 6038821/2025
Employer: Royal Mail Group Ltd
All claims were dismissed: unfair dismissal was struck out for lack of service, and the discrimination and harassment claims failed because the Tribunal found the respondent's conduct was not unwanted, not related to disability, and did not have the proscribed purpose or effect.
Reference: 6020012/2025
Employer: Home Office
All claims were dismissed as not well founded.
Reference: 2405358/2024
Employer: Dolce Schools Catering and Others
All claims were either struck out for procedural non-compliance or dismissed as out of time and/or not well-founded on the merits.
Reference: 2409694/2023
Employer: SCA Investments Ltd T/a Gousto
All claims were dismissed: the victimisation claim was out of time and not well-founded, and the other discrimination and wages claims were not pursued.
Reference: 2403499/2024
Employer: Peninsula Business Services Ltd
The claimant was not dismissed, so the unfair dismissal claim failed; the other claims also failed on their merits.
Reference: 6000953/2025
Employer: Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and I Haythornthwaite
The Tribunal found that Dr Gilby was constructively dismissed and subjected to detriments because of protected disclosures, making the dismissal unfair under section 103A and the detriment claims well-founded.
Reference: 2402398/2023
Employer: DIJLA Ltd T/a Dominos Pizza
The tribunal found the complaint of direct age discrimination was not well-founded and dismissed it.
Reference: 2406708/2024
Employer: Toolstation Ltd
The claim was dismissed because the claimant failed to attend the hearing and the claim also appeared to be out of time.
Reference: 2404260/2025
Employer: Royal Mail Group Ltd
The claimant's claim of unfair dismissal was not well-founded and was dismissed.
Reference: 2407242/2023
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.