Sector Report
Care Work Tribunal Data Analysis
Latest legal precedents and outcome patterns in the Care Work sector based on our 12-month database analysis.
122Cases Analysed (Last 12 Months)
Historical Care Work decisions from our database catalog.
53%Success Factor
Proportion of claims won or split/upheld in our database.
47%Dismissal Rate
Claims lost or struck out due to procedural/jurisdictional issues.
↑ Strongest IndicatorUnfair Dismissal (50% Success)
↓ Weakest IndicatorPattern Emerging...
Search by Claim Type
Showing 11 cases from the last 2 months.
1811237/2024 • 31 Mar 2026
split
The Tribunal upheld the unfair dismissal and failure to make reasonable adjustments claims but dismissed the protected disclosure, victimisation, harassment and unlawful deduction claims.
Legal Issues (1)
- Unfair dismissal; protected disclosure detriment; victimisation; harassment; failure to make reasonable adjustments (disability discrimination); unlawful deduction of wages.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6004801/2026 • 26 Mar 2026
lost
The tribunal concluded the claimant had not met the high likelihood test and procedural requirements for interim relief, so the application was dismissed.
Legal Issues (4)
- Whether the claimant’s interim relief application satisfied the procedural time‑limits of s 128 ERA 1996 and
- more importantly
- whether the tribunal could be satisfied that it was ‘likely’ the claimant would succeed at a full hearing on the underlying unfair dismissal
- whistleblowing and unauthorised deductions claims (s 129 test).
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
1603967/2025 • 24 Mar 2026
other
The tribunal refused the claimant’s interim relief application, finding it unlikely the dismissal was for a protected disclosure and making no final determination on the merits of the claim.
Legal Issues (1)
- Whether the dismissal was for a protected disclosure (whistleblowing) and therefore unfair; the appropriateness of granting interim relief; the requirement to undertake Acas early conciliation for claims other than the protected disclosure complaint.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
2403065/2023 • 18 Mar 2026
lost
Both the protected‑disclosure detriment claim and the disability‑discrimination claim were found to be not well founded and therefore failed.
Legal Issues (1)
- Whether the claimant made qualifying protected disclosures under s 43B/47B ERA 1996; whether the employer subjected him to detriment because of those disclosures; whether the claimant was disabled by reason of depression and the employer knew of it; whether the employer failed to make reasonable adjustments under ss 20‑21 Equality Act 2010.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
3200731/2025 • 17 Mar 2026
won
The tribunal concluded the employer had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages and ordered payment of the arrears.
Legal Issues (1)
- Claim for unauthorised deductions from wages; tribunal proceeded in the respondent’s absence under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024; calculation of arrears due.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
3201072/2024 • 17 Mar 2026
lost
Both claims were struck out because they were filed outside the statutory time limits and the claimant offered no justification, leaving the tribunal without jurisdiction.
Legal Issues (1)
- Statutory time limits for unauthorised deductions (ERA 1996) and discrimination claims (Equality Act 2010); the need to demonstrate that it was not reasonably practicable to bring the claim in time or that extending time is just and equitable; tribunal jurisdiction to hear out‑of‑time claims; power to strike out claims with no reasonable prospect of success.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6020278 • 16 Mar 2026
split
The claimant failed to establish that she was disabled at the relevant time, so the disability discrimination, harassment and reasonable‑adjustment claims were dismissed.
Legal Issues (2)
- Whether the claimant was a disabled person at the relevant time; liability for disability discrimination
- harassment and failure to make reasonable adjustments; continuation of victimisation and whistleblowing detriment claims.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6047937/2025 • 13 Mar 2026
won
The judge concluded the claimant had a pretty good chance of succeeding that her disclosures were protected, satisfying the test for interim relief.
Legal Issues (2)
- Whether the disclosures made to internal managers
- the CQC and HSE constitute protected whistleblowing under s.43A ERA 1996; the test for automatic unfair dismissal under s.103A; the “pretty good chance” standard for granting interim relief under s.128‑129 ERA 1996; and the appropriate remedy pending a full hearing.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6018075/2025 • 12 Mar 2026
lost
The tribunal dismissed the claim because the claimant was not regarded as disabled under the Equality Act 2010.
Legal Issues (1)
- Whether the claimant qualified as a disabled person under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 and therefore could rely on a claim of direct disability discrimination under section 13.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6015157/2024 • 12 Mar 2026
lost
All of the claimant’s discrimination claims were struck out because they lacked a reasonable prospect of success and the claimant failed to comply with tribunal orders.
Legal Issues (5)
- Application of Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 – striking out claims under rule 38(1)(a)
- (c) and (d) for lack of reasonable prospect of success and for claimant non‑compliance with tribunal directions; discrimination law (gender reassignment
- whistleblowing
- victimisation
- religion/belief).
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
2500119/2025 • 11 Mar 2026
split
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim but upheld the claims for unauthorised deductions and certain breach‑of‑contract payments.
Legal Issues (5)
- Unfair dismissal
- unauthorised deductions from wages
- breach of contract (non‑payment for training and unlawful deduction for DBS check)
- alleged pressure to purchase a car
- alleged breach of Working Time Regulations.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
Data sources
Decisions are sourced from official GOV.UK Employment Tribunal publications.
Important: Summaries and statistics are automated. Always verify against the original decision documents.