Latest tribunal judgments.

Luxury Leisure: 8002518/2025

The claimant's claim was struck out under Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 rule 38(1)(c) and (d) for non-compliance with a case management order and failure to actively pursue the claim. The claimant was ordered to provide information relating to his disability and complaints but failed to comply with multiple warnings and opportunities to respond.

Mr P Lewtas: 8001339/2025

The tribunal determined it lacked jurisdiction to consider the claimant's whistleblowing detriment complaint under section 48 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the unfair dismissal complaint under section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal exercised its discretion under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 to extend the time limit for presenting complaints under the Equality Act 2010 until 27 May 2025.

Heritage Portfolio Ltd: 4104231/2025

The claimant brought a claim against Heritage Portfolio Limited for unauthorised deductions from wages. The tribunal found the claim was not well founded and dismissed it.

Tennent Caledonian Breweries UK Ltd: 8002387/2025

A preliminary hearing to determine jurisdictional time limit issues for multiple claims brought by the claimant against Tennent Caledonian Breweries UK Limited. The claimant brought complaints of constructive unfair dismissal, sex discrimination, harassment, disability discrimination, victimisation, and detriment for protected disclosures. The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction over the whistleblowing and victimisation complaints, but did not have jurisdiction to consider the unfair dismissal, sex discrimination, harassment, and disability discrimination complaints, which were therefore dismissed.

I Gray and Greywalls LLP: 8001922/2025

This is a preliminary hearing to determine whether the claimant was a disabled person within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 during the relevant period. The claimant, a hotel Duty Manager, asserted she was disabled by reason of stress, anxiety, and insomnia arising from workplace treatment. The tribunal found that the claimant's mental health symptoms did not have a substantial or long-term adverse effect on her normal day to day activities at the relevant time.

Sky Subscriber Services Ltd: 8002382/2025

The claimant, employed by Sky Subscriber Services Limited as a Customer Priority Specialist for approximately 30 years, was dismissed for gross misconduct relating to alleged intentional call disconnections. The tribunal found the respondent had a reasonable belief that the claimant deliberately disconnected customer calls, carried out a reasonable investigation, and acted reasonably in dismissing her summarily despite her long service. The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.

Bilfinger (UK) Ltd: 4103572/2025

The claimant applied to amend his claim to add INEOS FPS Limited as a second respondent, alleging that he was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against on grounds of disability as a direct result of an instruction from INEOS to Bilfinger (UK) Limited. Employment Judge Mcfatridge granted the application, finding that there were issues between the claimant and the proposed second respondent falling within the tribunal's jurisdiction and that it was in the interests of justice to have them determined in these proceedings.

Adecco UK Ltd: 8001465/2025

The claimant brought claims of disability discrimination, harassment, and failure to make reasonable adjustments following her dismissal on 30 January 2025. The tribunal found that one discrimination claim was presented in time, but dismissed harassment, reasonable adjustments, and other discrimination claims as being presented late and it was not just and equitable to extend time. The respondent accepted the claimant had protected disabilities throughout the relevant period.

Hollytree Childcare Ltd: 8001916/2025

The claimant claimed unfair dismissal, discrimination arising from disability, breach of reasonable adjustments duty, notice pay, holiday pay, unlawful wage deduction, and breach of payslip obligations against her employer, a childcare nursery. The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim for lack of jurisdiction (insufficient continuous service), dismissed discrimination and reasonable adjustments claims as not well-founded, dismissed notice pay and holiday pay claims as not applicable, dismissed the payslip claim as not well-founded, but upheld the wage deduction claim and ordered the respondent to pay £97.50 for work performed on 4 June 2025.

Richmond House Care Home: 8002327/2025

The claimant was dismissed from her role as a senior carer on 23 April 2025 and brought claims for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, direct race discrimination and victimisation. The preliminary hearing considered whether out-of-time claims could proceed. The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims as it was reasonably practicable for them to be presented in time, but permitted the direct race discrimination claim to proceed under the just and equitable extension.

The City of Edinburgh Council: 8001001/2025

A preliminary hearing to determine whether complaints of unfair dismissal, whistleblowing detriment, and disability discrimination presented out of time could proceed. The claimant was dismissed on 3 December 2024 and presented his claim on 25 April 2025, beyond the three-month deadline. The Tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal and whistleblowing complaints as time-barred but allowed the disability discrimination complaint to proceed.

M Squared Lasers Ltd (in Administration): 4104136/2025 the claimants: 4104136/2025

The claimants were dismissed as redundant when the respondent company entered administration. The tribunal found the respondent breached its statutory obligations under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 by failing to consult appropriate employee representatives before dismissing 20 or more employees within a 90-day period. The claimants are entitled to a protective award of 90 days' pay.

Mulheron Scaffolding Services Ltd: 8002783/2025

The claimant, an HGV driver, claimed arrears of pay and holiday pay following deductions made by the respondent scaffolding business for damage to property. The tribunal found that the respondent was entitled to deduct £1,216 from the claimant's pay under a relevant contractual provision, dismissing the claimant's claims and allowing the respondent's counterclaim only to that extent.

SJ Highland Construction Ltd: 4103567/2025

The claimant brought claims for unpaid holiday pay and unpaid wages against SJ Highland Construction Ltd. The respondent did not attend the hearing. The tribunal found the claims well-founded and ordered the respondent to pay £985 for accrued unpaid holiday pay and £420 for unpaid wages.

Giurgiu v Arnold Clark Automobiles Ltd: 8002920/2025

The claimant, employed as a Technician at a car dealership, claimed the respondent made unlawful deductions from his pay by failing to award him a TIP scheme uplift from 1 January 2025. The claimant had worked under an informal arrangement to vary his contractual hours. The tribunal dismissed the claim, finding the respondent did not make unlawful deductions.

Rt Hon Lord Carloway and Rt Hon Lord Pentland, the Lord President: 8002204/2025

The claimant, a part-time Sheriff and Advocate, brought claims of disability discrimination and detriment arising from a protected disclosure made in relation to his treatment during cancer diagnosis. The tribunal determined that the claim is barred by res judicata, finding that the same issues had been previously litigated, and therefore declined jurisdiction to hear the case.

ICTS (UK) Ltd: 4100604/2025

A Security Supervisor employed at Aberdeen Airport was unfairly dismissed on the grounds of sickness absence. The employer applied its absence management policy mechanically without proper consideration of underlying medical conditions, alternative options, or the actual business impact of the absences. The tribunal found the dismissal unfair and awarded basic and compensatory awards totalling £45,129.

Target Healthcare Ltd: 8002264/2025

The claimant claimed unfair dismissal against Target Healthcare Limited. The respondent conceded at the final hearing that the dismissal was unfair. The tribunal rejected the claimant's application to strike out the respondent's response, finding no unreasonable or vexatious conduct, and proceeded to determine remedy. The tribunal awarded total compensation of £16,696 (basic award £5,033 and compensatory award £11,663).

Lifeways Group (Living Ambitions): 8001599/2025

The claimant, a support worker, was dismissed for gross misconduct after taking a vulnerable adult service user to his home on New Year's Day without proper authorization, in breach of professional boundaries and safeguarding policies. The tribunal found that whilst the claimant was a dedicated carer who demonstrated remorse, dismissal was a fair sanction within the range of reasonable responses given the safeguarding context and the breach of professional boundaries. The claim was dismissed.

Loomis UK Ltd: 4108470/2015

The claimant's claim was struck out under rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 for failure to actively pursue. After the claimant's solicitors withdrew and correspondence sent to his registered address was returned as undeliverable, the claimant failed to provide an updated address or take any steps to advance the claim, leading the tribunal to assume he no longer wished to pursue it.

Glasgow City Council: 113876/2009

The claimant's claim against Glasgow City Council was struck out under rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 for failure to actively pursue the claim. The tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons by 9 April 2026 or request a hearing, but the claimant failed to do so.

Turners (Soham) Ltd: 4102225/2014

The claimant's claim against Turners (Soham) Limited was struck out under rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 on the grounds that the claim had not been actively pursued. The claimant failed to provide an acceptable reason or request a hearing when given the opportunity to do so on 15th April 2026.

Ark Fire Protection Ltd: 8002942/2025

The claimant brought a complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages against Ark Fire Protection Limited. The tribunal upheld the complaint and ordered the respondent to pay £1,185.04 to the claimant. Other complaints made by the claimant were withdrawn and dismissed.

Aberdeen City Council: 8002968/2025

The claimant, a solicitor employed by Aberdeen City Council (described as Glasgow City Council in the judgment), claimed indirect discrimination under section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 in relation to a reduction in working hours from 37 to 35 hours per week for full-time staff while preserving part-time staff hours. The tribunal was required to determine whether it had jurisdiction to hear the claim, as the claim was brought outside the primary three-month limitation period. The tribunal found the claim was within its jurisdiction on the basis of a just and equitable extension under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010.

McQueens Dairies Ltd: 8002218/2025

The claimant's claim against McQueens Dairies Ltd was struck out under rule 38(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 for failure to actively pursue the claim. The claimant failed to attend a case management preliminary hearing on 7 April 2026 and could not be contacted. Following a strike out warning and opportunity to respond by 14 April 2026, the claimant provided no response, leading to the strike out order.

Arnold Clark Automobiles Ltd: 8002569/2025

The claimant, employed by Arnold Clark Automobiles since 1992, claimed disability status based on anxiety and panic attacks and complained of failure to make reasonable adjustments and discrimination arising from disability, with alleged discriminatory acts occurring in May 2025. The tribunal found that the claimant was not a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 in May 2025.

Openreach Ltd: 4104283/2025

The claimant brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Openreach Ltd. The tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to consider the claim and dismissed it.

North Ayrshire Council: 4107527/2019

The claimant's claim against North Ayrshire Council was struck out under rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity on 3 March 2026 to provide written reasons by 24 March 2026 or to request a hearing to show cause why the claim should not be struck out. The claimant failed to provide an acceptable reason or request a hearing.

North Ayrshire Council: 4102797/2020

The claimant's claim against North Ayrshire Council was struck out under rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 on the grounds that the claim had not been actively pursued. The tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons or request a hearing by 24 March 2026, which the claimant failed to do.

Arria Data2Text Ltd: 4102599/2025

The claimant was employed by Arria Data2Text Limited. The tribunal found the respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages by failing to pay the claimant's full wages from May 2024 to August 2025, and also breached contract by failing to make employer pension contributions. A consent judgment ordered the respondent to pay £48,125.10 for wage deductions and £2,406.30 for pension contributions.

Scott Bros Motor Engineers Ltd (Compulsory Liquidation): 4100318/2025

The claimant's claim against Scott Bros Motor Engineers Limited (in compulsory liquidation) was struck out under rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The tribunal found that the claim had not been actively pursued and the claimant failed to provide acceptable reasons or request a hearing when given the opportunity to do so.

Glasgow Life: 8000089/2025

The claimant sought to amend his claim to add a new complaint of automatic unfair dismissal under section 103A ERA based on alleged protected disclosures. The tribunal refused the amendment application, finding that the new complaint was made significantly out of time (17 March 2026, over two years after dismissal on 4 July 2024), and that it was not reasonably practicable for it to have been omitted from the original ET1 submitted on 13 January 2025, particularly given the claimant had professional legal representation at that time.

AK Vehicle Rental Ltd: 8000727/2026

The claimant applied for interim relief in proceedings against AK Vehicle Rental Ltd. The Employment Tribunal refused the application for interim relief.

Five Star Events Group Ltd: 8002578/2025

The claimant alleged she had been unfairly constructively dismissed by the respondent, an event manpower business. The tribunal dismissed the claim on two grounds: first, that the claim was presented late and the tribunal lacked jurisdiction; second, that even if jurisdiction existed, there was no fundamental breach of contract entitling the claimant to resign. The tribunal found the respondent was justified in revoking an informal working from home arrangement and did not pressure the claimant into accepting part-time work.

Tesco Stores Ltd: 8001593/2025

The claimant claimed ordinary unfair dismissal, detriment for protected disclosure, race discrimination, breach of Working Time Regulations, and unlawful deduction of wages following his dismissal from Tesco. The tribunal dismissed all claims: the unfair dismissal claim failed due to lack of two years' continuous service (break in service between April and June 2024); the protected disclosure claim failed as disclosures were not made in the public interest; the race discrimination claim failed as there was no evidence the treatment was because of race; and the Working Time and wages claims failed due to lack of specific evidence.

The Royal Zoological Society of Scotland and Others: 8001011/2025

Ms L O'Hara, an experienced zoologist with ADHD, claimed various forms of discrimination, whistleblowing detriment, and harassment during her nine-month employment at Edinburgh Zoo. The tribunal found that all of her complaints were unsuccessful on the merits and dismissed them, having heard 12 days of evidence including testimony from the claimant and multiple respondent witnesses.

Huffmans: 8002771/2025

The claimant, dismissed for redundancy on 5 December 2024 after 4 years of service, brought claims for statutory redundancy payment, notice pay, and accrued holiday pay. The tribunal found the claimant lacked title to present the claims and the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to consider them, dismissing all claims for want of jurisdiction.

Luxion Sales Ltd: 8000667/2026

The claimant sought interim relief on the basis that his dismissal was automatically unfair under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996, alleging he made protected disclosures about concerns regarding his treatment at work. Employment Judge A Kemp refused the application for interim relief, finding that the claimant had not met the statutory test of having a pretty good chance of success, as there were material areas of doubt and conflicts in evidence regarding what disclosures were made and whether the dismissal was motivated by those disclosures.

MacKenzie Taylor Asset Management Ltd: 8002140/2025

The claimant claimed unfair dismissal from her position at a small financial management firm regulated by the FCA. The tribunal found that the employer had a genuine and reasonable belief, based on a fair investigation, that the claimant was guilty of gross misconduct including interfering with work phone data, illegally accessing the employer's computer to photograph confidential and legally privileged emails, and unauthorised disclosure of confidential information. The tribunal concluded the dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses and was fair.

London Clubs Management Ltd: 8002445/2025

The claimant's claim for ordinary unfair dismissal was struck out under rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 as having no reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal found that, based on the dates of employment provided in the ET1 form, the claimant did not have the required two years' qualifying service to bring such a claim. The claimant acknowledged this deficiency at the hearing.