Back to Insights
5 min read

Employment tribunal success rates by claim type

Claimant success rates by employment tribunal claim type in published UK judgments, with sample-size caveats, compensation context, and links to claim-specific guides.

Claim types

25

10+ case sample

Largest sample

9,179

Unfair Dismissal

Top success

91.8%

Protective Award

Top median

£13,495

116 compensated cases

What the data says

In this analysis, Tribunal Intel is drawing on 38,402 claim-type tags from published employment tribunal judgments. To avoid drawing conclusions from tiny samples, this insight only ranks claim types with at least 10 tagged published cases. That leaves 38,402 tagged case appearances across 25 claim types.

On that filtered view, Protective Award has the highest claimant success rate at 91.8% across 182 tagged cases. That does not make it an “easy” claim; it means that, among published judgments currently indexed here, claimant-successful or partially-successful outcomes are more common in that tagged set.

The largest claim-type sample is Unfair Dismissal with 9,179 tagged cases. Its scale makes it useful for directional reading, but it also means the category mixes many factual situations, procedural histories, and remedies stages.

The practical takeaway is to read success rate, sample size, and compensation together. A small category with a high success rate may be less useful for planning than a larger category with a lower but more stable rate. A high average award can also be driven by a few exceptional cases rather than the ordinary value of that claim type. Median compensation is usually more stable, but it is still not reliable when only a handful of successful cases include recorded awards.

Claim types with the highest claimant success rates

Protective Award

182 cases · 167 claimant-successful / partially successful cases

91.8%

median £3,402 · avg £7,510 · 38 of those have compensation

Unlawful Deduction

5,810 cases · 4,411 claimant-successful / partially successful cases

75.9%

median £1,870 · avg £4,939 · 3,332 of those have compensation

Working Time

160 cases · 121 claimant-successful / partially successful cases

75.6%

median £1,671 · avg £3,705 · 71 of those have compensation

Redundancy Pay

1,448 cases · 1,088 claimant-successful / partially successful cases

75.1%

median £4,200 · avg £6,743 · 713 of those have compensation

Breach Of Contract

6,159 cases · 3,945 claimant-successful / partially successful cases

64.1%

median £2,800 · avg £9,441 · 2,323 of those have compensation

Reasonable Adjustments

25 cases · 16 claimant-successful / partially successful cases

64.0%

median £6,032 · avg £6,032 · 2 of those have compensation

Tupe

80 cases · 51 claimant-successful / partially successful cases

63.7%

median £6,402 · avg £11,381 · 17 of those have compensation

Discrimination Pregnancy

269 cases · 150 claimant-successful / partially successful cases

55.8%

median £10,573 · avg £13,923 · 48 of those have compensation

Harassment

1,087 cases · 486 claimant-successful / partially successful cases

44.7%

median £5,310 · avg £11,464 · 59 of those have compensation

Constructive Dismissal

1,482 cases · 628 claimant-successful / partially successful cases

42.4%

median £6,000 · avg £14,365 · 130 of those have compensation

Unfair Dismissal

9,179 cases · 3,739 claimant-successful / partially successful cases

40.7%

median £4,784 · avg £15,378 · 1,008 of those have compensation

Victimisation

1,127 cases · 427 claimant-successful / partially successful cases

37.9%

median £10,601 · avg £118,362 · 34 of those have compensation

How to use this insight

Start with sample size

A larger sample usually gives a more stable signal. Treat small categories as prompts for reading cases, not as a headline probability.

Compare claim mix

Many judgments involve multiple claim types. Use the claim label to find comparable cases, then inspect what actually drove the outcome.

Look beyond winning

A claim type can show a solid success rate but low average compensation, or a lower rate with occasional large awards. Both are commercially relevant.

Was this useful?

No comments yet