Sector Report
Education Tribunal Data Analysis
Latest legal precedents and outcome patterns in the Education sector based on our 12-month database analysis.
195Cases Analysed (Last 12 Months)
Historical Education decisions from our database catalog.
34%Success Factor
Proportion of claims won or split/upheld in our database.
66%Dismissal Rate
Claims lost or struck out due to procedural/jurisdictional issues.
↑ Strongest IndicatorUnfair dismissal (46% Success)
↓ Weakest IndicatorUnfair Dismissal and Discrimination (20% Success)
Search by Claim Type
Showing 15 cases from the last 2 months.
6033618/2025 • 5 Jun 2026
struck_out
The claim was struck out because the claimant failed to comply with Case Management Orders and did not actively pursue the claim, and did not respond to a warning letter.
Legal Issues (1)
- Strike out under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 for non-compliance with case management orders and failure to actively pursue the claim.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6039843/2025 • 2 Jun 2026
won
The respondent failed to present a valid response, and the tribunal made a default judgment under rule 22, upholding the claimant's claims for unpaid wages, notice pay, and holiday pay.
Legal Issues (1)
- Unauthorised deductions from wages (Employment Rights Act 1996 s.13); breach of contract in respect of notice; failure to pay holiday pay (Working Time Regulations).
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
2402708/2020 • 28 May 2026
struck_out
The claims were struck out because the claimants did not actively pursue them and failed to respond to the Tribunal's warning letter.
Legal Issues (1)
- Strike out under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 for failure to actively pursue the claim; overriding objective considered.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6025015/2025 • 26 May 2026
lost
The tribunal found that the respondent acted reasonably in dismissing the claimant for gross misconduct after she made a racially offensive comment, and that the dismissal was fair under section 98(4) ERA and justified for wrongful dismissal.
Legal Issues (1)
- Whether the dismissal was for a potentially fair reason (conduct); whether the employer had a genuine belief in misconduct based on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation; whether dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses; and whether the claimant's conduct amounted to a repudiatory breach justifying summary dismissal for wrongful dismissal.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6003665/ • 22 May 2026
lost
All claims were dismissed as not well founded.
Legal Issues (3)
- Whether the claimant was subjected to direct discrimination
- harassment
- or victimisation on grounds of race; whether the claimant was constructively and unfairly dismissed; whether the respondent breached the contract.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
2502221/2023 • 21 May 2026
lost
The claim was dismissed by consent after the parties reached a binding settlement agreement.
Legal Issues (1)
- Not provided
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
3205650/2022 • 19 May 2026
struck_out
The claim was struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success due to fundamental deficiencies in the legal pleading of indirect discrimination.
Legal Issues (4)
- Failure to identify a neutral Provision
- Criterion or Practice (PCP)
- failure to define a protected characteristic
- and failure to identify a disadvantaged group for comparative purposes.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
3200088/2025 • 15 May 2026
jurisdiction_dismissal
The claim was dismissed because the Tribunal had no jurisdiction as the claimant failed to obtain an ACAS early conciliation certificate before presenting his ET1.
Legal Issues (1)
- Jurisdiction – failure to comply with s.18A Employment Tribunals Act 1996 requiring early conciliation before instituting proceedings. The Court of Appeal in Reynolds v Abel Estate Agent Ltd confirmed that non-compliance deprives the Tribunal of jurisdiction.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6039342/2025 • 15 May 2026
struck_out
The claim was struck out as it was a duplicate of existing proceedings and therefore constituted an abuse of process.
Legal Issues (1)
- Abuse of process under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 regarding duplicate claims.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
3301251/2024 • 15 May 2026
split
The claimant succeeded in his claim that he was subjected to unlawful detriments via negative references due to protected disclosures, but his other claims were dismissed.
Legal Issues (1)
- Whether the claimant made protected disclosures under whistleblowing legislation and whether the provision of negative references constituted an unlawful detriment resulting from those disclosures.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
3306520/2025 • 14 May 2026
won
The respondent failed to present a valid response, so the Tribunal entered judgment in favour of the claimants for unpaid wages and/or notice pay.
Legal Issues (1)
- Unauthorised deductions from wages under Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996; breach of contract in respect of notice pay; default judgment due to failure to respond; mitigation of loss for notice pay claims.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6012050/2025 • 14 May 2026
struck_out
The claim was struck out because the claimant failed to actively pursue the claim and did not respond to the Tribunal's warning letter.
Legal Issues (1)
- Strike out for want of prosecution under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024; failure to respond to Tribunal warning; overriding objective.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
1400480/2025 • 8 May 2026
lost
The complaint was dismissed because the workload bundles (WLBs) were not 'wages' under section 27 ERA 1996 and there was no contractual or legal entitlement to payment for them.
Legal Issues (1)
- Definition of 'wages' under section 27 Employment Rights Act 1996; whether workload allocations (WLBs) constitute wages; whether there was a contractual or implied entitlement to payment for carried-forward bundles; time limits and jurisdiction.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
2402673/2024 • 8 May 2026
lost
The Tribunal found the claims for less favourable treatment under the AWR 2010 and unauthorised deductions from wages were not well-founded.
Legal Issues (1)
- Whether the claimant was entitled to equal treatment under Regulation 5 of the AWR 2010 and whether the respondent had a statutory defence under Regulation 14(3).
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
2309481/2025 • 6 May 2026
won
The Tribunal found that the reality of the working relationship, including personal service, control by the respondent, and mutuality of obligation, meant the claimant was an employee under s.230 ERA 1996.
Legal Issues (7)
- Whether the claimant was an 'employee' under s.230 Employment Rights Act 1996
- applying the tests from Ready Mixed Concrete
- Autoclenz
- and Uber v Aslam
- focusing on personal service
- control
- and mutuality of obligation.
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.