Browse recent Employment Tribunal decisions heard at Reading.
£179,854.30 combined
Published decisions
Newest decisions first
Employer: Royal Mail Group Ltd
The claimant's constructive unfair dismissal claim was struck out at a preliminary hearing, and all remaining claims were dismissed at the final hearing.
Reference: 3302961/2024
Employer: LHR Airports Ltd
Both claims were dismissed because they were not presented within the applicable time limits.
Reference: 6006654/2025
Employer: UK Atomic Energy Authority
All claims dismissed: race discrimination struck out for no reasonable prospects, disability discrimination dismissed as claimant not disabled, constructive unfair dismissal dismissed as no breach of contract.
Reference: 3306035/2023
Employer: Forsetti Global Ltd (in voluntary liquidation)
The claimant succeeded on both claims; the respondent made unauthorised wage deductions and dismissed without notice in breach of contract, with total compensation capped at £25,000.
Reference: 6003192/2025
Employer: Zrada Ltd
The respondent failed to pay the claimant's wages, holiday pay, expenses, and constructively and wrongfully dismissed the claimant.
Reference: 3302543/2025
Employer: Bacerius Investments Ltd and Delesius Investments Ltd (together as Trustees of Sutton Place)
The claimant's claims for redundancy pay, unpaid wages, holiday pay and notice pay succeeded because the respondent failed to pay the sums due and the tribunal found it had jurisdiction despite the claims being presented out of time due to it not being reasonably practicable to present earlier.
Reference: 3313736/2022
Employer: Coalo Ltd
All claims were dismissed because the Tribunal found that the respondent's actions were not discriminatory, the alleged provision, criterion or practice did not exist, the claimant was not subjected to a detriment for a protected act, and the email relied upon as a protected disclosure was not in the public interest, and the reason for dismissal was redundancy.
Reference: 3300319/2024
Employer: The Hearing Care Partnership Ltd
The claimant's complaint of direct race discrimination was dismissed because the Tribunal found the respondent's non-discriminatory explanations credible and the claimant's evidence lacking in credibility and substance, with no direct or indirect evidence of race being a factor.
Reference: 3305551/2024
Employer: I Yukums and others
The claimant succeeded in her claims against the fourth respondent for unfair dismissal, unauthorised deductions, unpaid pension, holiday pay, and failure to provide a statement, but her claims against the other respondents were dismissed.
Reference: 3300036/2025
Employer: Fortnum and Mason plc
All claims were dismissed as not well-founded after a full merits hearing.
Reference: 3302461/2024
Employer: Mr C Lord and David Lloyd Leisure Ltd
The claim was out of time but the tribunal extended time on just and equitable grounds, so the claim will proceed.
Reference: 3303830/2024
Employer: Southern Electric Power Distribution plc
The claim was struck out because the claimant failed to pay the deposit ordered at a preliminary hearing.
Reference: 6017296/2025
Employer: NetApp UK Ltd
The claim was dismissed because the deductions were authorised by valid contractual provisions and the claimant's prior written consent.
Reference: 6002166/2025
Employer: EasyJet Airline Company Ltd
The claim was dismissed because the claimant failed to attend the preliminary hearing and did not respond to attempts to contact her, indicating she had decided not to pursue her claim.
Reference: 3312555/2023
Employer: CPM UK Ltd
The claimant resigned and was not dismissed, so the unfair dismissal complaint fails.
Reference: 3302586/2025
Employer: Oxfordshire County Council and S Tomlin
The claimant succeeded in proving that two negative references were provided because of his protected disclosures, but failed to prove other alleged detriments were caused by the disclosures.
Reference: 3301251/2024
Employer: Virgin Media O2 UK Ltd
The claimant's protected disclosure claims were struck out because the alleged disclosure could not reasonably be believed to be in the public interest or tend to show health and safety endangerment, thus no reasonable prospect of success.
Reference: 6014937/2025
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.