53
Total cases
29
Contested
62.1%
Claimant success
contested only · 29 cases
£22,400
Average award
where awarded
2
Avg hearing days
Contested hearing outcomes
Claimant succeeds18 (62.1%)
Respondent succeeds11 (37.9%)
“Claimant succeeds” includes fully and partly successful claims. Based on 29 contested hearings.
Case classification
29
Contested
16
Procedural
8
Default
Recent contested hearings
Claimant v Stubbs Construction Limited in creditors' voluntary liquidation2 January 2026
Claimant v SMG Europe Holdings Limited t/a ASM Global17 December 2025
Claimant v Axiom Ince Limited (in administration)7 October 2025
£21,793
Claimant v Axiom Ince Limited (in administration)7 October 2025
£16,590
Claimant v Boots Management Services Limited6 October 2025
Claimant v Park Care Homes (No.2) Limited24 September 2025
Claimant v Santander UK PLC4 September 2025
Claimant v Chillblast Ltd24 July 2025
£699
Claimant v Myers Group 1959 Limited23 July 2025
Claimant v Royal Mail Group Limited17 July 2025
Claimant v Midas Manors Limited (in creditors' voluntary liquidation)17 July 2025
£16,228
Claimant v Humber Teaching NHS Foundation Trust2 July 2025
Claimant v Newday Cards Limited27 June 2025
Claimant v Marsden Weighing Machine Group Ltd12 June 2025
£115,115
Claimant v The Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police27 May 2025
Claimant v Chicken Cabins Ltd13 May 2025
£16,200
Claimant v [XX] University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust28 April 2025
£57,502
Claimant v Storetec Services Ltd17 April 2025
Claimant v Forza Foods Limited31 March 2025
Claimant v Barchester Healthcare Limited10 March 2025
Most heard claim types
Direct Discrimination15
Unlawful Deduction from Wages10
Unfair Dismissal8
Discrimination Arising from Disability (s.15)6
Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments6
About these figures
Figures are derived from published tribunal decisions on GOV.UK. Not all decisions are published. Success rates reflect contested hearings only and exclude procedural disposals and default judgments. These figures describe case outcomes and should not be interpreted as a measure of judicial quality.