Employment Tribunal decisions and outcome patterns in the Healthcare sector from the last 12 months.
Final Healthcare decisions with at least one determined claim.
Proportion of cases won or split/upheld in our database.
Cases lost or struck out due to procedural/jurisdictional issues.
Showing 45 cases from the last 2 months.
Browse the latest published decisions for employers represented in this sector sample.
The tribunal dismissed the negligent misstatement complaint because it fell outside the types of complaints Parliament has empowered the tribunal to decide.
Reference: 1600235/2026
All claims were dismissed by the Employment Tribunal.
Reference: 6007854/2024
The respondent failed to pay the claimant for all hours worked, fuel allowance, and holiday pay, and did not provide a written statement of particulars, resulting in total compensation of £8,346.80.
Reference: 6038541/2025
The first claimant was unfairly dismissed, and both claimants succeeded in their harassment claim, but their alternative direct discrimination claim was dismissed.
Reference: 1603346/2025
The claimant's claims under Working Time Regulations were struck out for no reasonable prospects, and his religion/belief discrimination and Health and Safety claims were withdrawn, while other claims remain pending.
Reference: 2307277/2025
The discrimination claims were either out of time or not well-founded on the evidence.
Reference: 6009627/2024
The claimant's claims for breach of contract, unfair dismissal, and unauthorised deductions were all upheld, with compensation awarded for each.
Reference: 2501339/2024
All three complaints were dismissed as not well-founded.
Reference: 2301943/2024
The claimant was not a disabled person at the material time, so his disability discrimination claims were dismissed.
Reference: 1806083/2025
The claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments succeeded, but all other claims (direct race and disability discrimination, harassment, holiday pay) were dismissed.
Reference: 2300820/2023
The claimant presented her claim without an ACAS early conciliation certificate, which is a mandatory jurisdictional requirement, so the claim was correctly rejected.
Reference: 6007372/2026
The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, but the disability discrimination claim was not struck out and continues.
Reference: 6006650/2025
The claim was struck out in its entirety because it was an abuse of process, seeking to relitigate matters already finally determined or which should have been raised in earlier proceedings.
Reference: 1308627/2023
All claims were dismissed because the claimant failed to attend the preliminary hearing, did not provide a reasonable explanation, and had not actively pursued her complaints.
Reference: 8000614/2026
The claims of direct race discrimination and victimisation were not well-founded on the merits because the redundancy process was fair, the claimant was not treated less favourably because of her race, and the decision-makers were unaware of her protected act.
Reference: 6007366/2024
The claimant won on constructive unfair dismissal and unlawful deductions from wages but lost on direct and indirect discrimination claims.
Reference: 6008285/2024
Claimant succeeded in unfair dismissal because Respondent failed to obtain further medical evidence or consider alternative roles before dismissing, but discrimination claims failed due to lack of causative link or substantial disadvantage.
Reference: 6010801/2024
The Tribunal upheld jurisdiction for unfair dismissal and discrimination arising from disability (claims to proceed), but dismissed claims for failure to make reasonable adjustments and harassment related to disability as out of time and not just and equitable to extend.
Reference: 8002932/2025
Claimant won on victimisation (bonus withdrawal) and section 38 claim but lost on direct discrimination, harassment and unfair dismissal.
Reference: 3200344/2023
All claims were struck out: the whistleblowing claims had no reasonable prospect of success due to previous findings, and the unfair dismissal and victimisation claims were struck out due to the claimant's failure to comply with orders and non-attendance at the final hearing.
Reference: 2303596/2022
The claimant's unfair dismissal claim was struck out for lack of service, and his claims of direct race discrimination, victimisation, and wrongful dismissal were dismissed on their merits.
Reference: 2303242/2024
The claimant lost her unfair dismissal claim because the tribunal found the dismissal was due to conduct and performance concerns, not her wage complaint, but she won her wages claim by consent.
Reference: 8000342/2026
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
The Tribunal found the dismissal was unfair because the employer failed to follow its own disciplinary policy and constitution, the investigation was inadequate, and the decision to dismiss was outside the range of reasonable responses given the claimant's open use of vehicles with management approval and the lack of any clear policy prohibition.
Reference: 2600557/2024
The tribunal dismissed the claim because it found that the respondent had reasonable grounds to impose restrictions, suspend, and investigate the claimant, and did not breach the implied term of trust and confidence.
Reference: 8001073/2025
The unfair dismissal claim was struck out due to lack of qualifying service, but the disability discrimination claims were allowed to proceed.
Reference: 6002895/2025
The complaint of direct disability discrimination was not well-founded and was dismissed.
Reference: 3311470/2024
The claims for disability discrimination were brought out of time and the Tribunal declined to exercise its discretion to allow them to proceed on just and equitable grounds because the claimant had not provided a reasonable explanation for the extensive delay.
Reference: 4100889/2025
The claimant failed to prove facts from which discrimination could be inferred; the evidence showed she was dismissed for poor performance, not because of her sexual orientation.
Reference: 6013533/2024
The claim was dismissed because the claimant failed to attend the hearing without providing any reason.
Reference: 1808624/2024
The race and age discrimination claims were dismissed as out of time, but the constructive unfair dismissal claim was allowed to proceed.
Reference: 6022815/2025
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
The claimant succeeded in unfair dismissal and wages claims but discrimination claims were dismissed.
Reference: 3200277/2024
The respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages and failed to pay accrued holiday pay.
Reference: 6019835/2025
The claim was dismissed because the claimant failed to prove that the decisions were taken because of the protected act, rather than because of genuine concerns about her conduct identified in the tribunal judgment.
Reference: 1602431/2024
All claims struck out because the respondent company was dissolved, leaving the tribunal without jurisdiction.
Reference: 6001452/2025
Claimant won unfair dismissal but lost other claims; compensation limited to basic award due to Polkey reduction.
Reference: 1306301/2024
The Trust's policy requiring claimants to share a changing room with a biological male trans woman and its failure to address their concerns amounted to harassment and indirect sex discrimination, but other harassment allegations and victimisation claims were dismissed.
Reference: 2501192/2024
All complaints were well-founded and the respondent was ordered to pay the claimant for notice pay, holiday pay, redundancy payment, and unauthorised deductions.
Reference: 6035258/2025
The claimant was unfairly dismissed by the respondent.
Reference: 6011467/2024
The harassment claim and the claim against the second respondent were struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success, while the remaining discrimination allegations against the first respondent were ordered to be subject to a deposit due to little reasonable prospect of success.
Reference: 2601565/2024
All discrimination complaints were dismissed because the reduction in shifts was due to the introduction of a new shift allocation system (Rotamaster) and not because of any protected characteristic; the Respondent provided a compelling non-discriminatory explanation.
Reference: 3200347/2025
The claimant was not an employee, so unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; however, she was a worker, so the holiday pay claim will proceed.
Reference: 6022446/2024
The unfair dismissal claim succeeded, but the reasonable adjustments claim was dismissed by consent.
Reference: 2601793/2024
All complaints of sex discrimination, harassment, and victimisation were dismissed as not well-founded.
Reference: 6017057/2024
Decisions are sourced from official GOV.UK Employment Tribunal publications.
Important: Summaries and statistics are automated. Always verify against the original decision documents.