Sector Report

Education Tribunal Data Analysis

Latest legal precedents and outcome patterns in the Education sector based on our 12-month database analysis.

148Cases Analysed (Last 12 Months)

Historical Education decisions from our database catalog.

37%Success Factor

Proportion of claims won or split/upheld in our database.

63%Dismissal Rate

Claims lost or struck out due to procedural/jurisdictional issues.

↑ Strongest IndicatorUnfair dismissal (50% Success)

↓ Weakest IndicatorUnfair Dismissal (24% Success)

Search by Claim Type

Unfair Dismissal Constructive Dismissal Discrimination Redundancy Pay Unpaid Wages Whistleblowing Breach Contract Harassment

Showing 15 cases from the last 2 months.

6042984/2025 • 3 Apr 2026

lost

The Tribunal concluded the claimant’s reconsideration application identified no error of law or procedural defect, so it was refused.

Legal Issues (2)

Whether the claimant’s reconsideration application satisfied the statutory test under Rule 68/69 (identifying an error of law
procedural irregularity or a matter in the interests of justice) and the principle of finality of tribunal decisions.

GOV.UK SourceView Decision

6023534/2025 • 2 Apr 2026

jurisdiction_dismissal

All of the claimant's remaining claims were struck out because they were filed outside the statutory time limit and the tribunal declined to extend time, leaving it without jurisdiction.

Legal Issues (1)

Victimisation under s27 Equality Act 2010; failure to make reasonable adjustments under ss20‑21 Equality Act 2010; statutory time‑limit under s123 Equality Act 2010; tribunal discretion to extend time on a just‑and‑equitable basis; burden of proof on claimant.

GOV.UK SourceView Decision

1406042/2023 • 30 Mar 2026

won

The tribunal found the claimant was entitled to statutory holiday pay for group tuition in Period One and for both individual and group tuition in Period Two, although the claim for individual tuition in Period One was time‑barred.

Legal Issues (1)

Whether the claimant was a worker/employee for holiday‑pay purposes under the Working Time Regulations 1998; entitlement to statutory holiday pay for group tuition in Period One and for both individual and group tuition in Period Two; breach of regulation 16 (non‑payment of holiday pay); limitation period for the Period One individual‑tuition claim; unauthorised deductions under the Employment Rights Act 1996.

GOV.UK SourceView Decision

6014599/2025 • 26 Mar 2026

struck_out

The claim was struck out because the claimant did not comply with the Tribunal’s order and failed to respond to the Tribunal’s warning.

Legal Issues (1)

Application of Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 to strike out a claim for non‑compliance with Tribunal orders; adherence to the overriding objective under Rule 3.

GOV.UK SourceView Decision

6020761/2024 • 23 Mar 2026

struck_out

All claims were struck out because the claimant failed to establish any employment or worker status, leaving the Tribunal without jurisdiction.

Legal Issues (1)

Whether the claimant had sufficient employment status to give the Employment Tribunal jurisdiction to hear the claims.

GOV.UK SourceView Decision

2309355/2025 • 20 Mar 2026

won

The Tribunal found that the Second Respondent had not paid the claimant the agreed redundancy sum for the period 5 July 2025 to 31 August 2025 and ordered payment of £2,806.45.

Legal Issues (1)

Breach of contract / failure to pay agreed redundancy payment; determination of liability despite the respondent’s lack of response to the claim.

GOV.UK SourceView Decision

8002573/2025 • 19 Mar 2026

lost

The tribunal found the discrimination claims were out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend the limitation period.

Legal Issues (3)

Whether the discrimination claims were time‑barred under the Equality Act 2010 and
if so
whether the tribunal could extend the limitation period under s 123 on a just and equitable basis.

GOV.UK SourceView Decision

1603459/2025 • 17 Mar 2026

split

The tribunal found the claimant was not disabled during the relevant period, so the disability‑discrimination claim was dismissed while the remaining complaints continue.

Legal Issues (1)

Whether the claimant was a disabled person under the Equality Act during the relevant period and therefore whether a disability‑discrimination claim could proceed.

GOV.UK SourceView Decision

1807482/2024 • 13 Mar 2026

lost

The Tribunal found that the claimant's claims of indirect disability discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments were not upheld.

Legal Issues (1)

Whether the university indirectly discriminated against the claimant on the basis of disability (s.19 Equality Act 2010) and whether it failed to make reasonable adjustments (ss.20‑21 Equality Act 2010).

GOV.UK SourceView Decision

2304729/2025 • 13 Mar 2026

jurisdiction_dismissal

The Tribunal held that time spent in Early Conciliation before the primary limitation period does not count, so the claim was filed seven days late and was therefore struck out for lack of jurisdiction.

Legal Issues (3)

Whether the claim was filed within the three‑month limitation period under s.111(2) ERA
the effect of s.207B(3) ERA on time spent in Early Conciliation before the primary limitation period
and the binding authority of Garau and Raison on the interpretation of that provision.

GOV.UK SourceView Decision

2303635/2023 • 12 Mar 2026

lost

All of the claimant's claims were found to be not well‑founded and were dismissed.

Legal Issues (2)

Whether the employer engaged in direct age discrimination
direct race discrimination and breached the claimant's contract of employment.

GOV.UK SourceView Decision

2300816/2022 • 11 Mar 2026

split

The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim but upheld four of the disability discrimination complaints.

Legal Issues (1)

Whether the dismissal was a fair capability dismissal under s.98 ERA 1996; whether the employer breached its duty to make reasonable adjustments and discriminated on the basis of disability under s.15 Equality Act 2010; whether the claimant suffered harassment linked to his disability.

GOV.UK SourceView Decision

2403490/2024 • 10 Mar 2026

lost

The claimant’s failure to attend the final hearing and to comply with case‑management orders led the Tribunal to strike out his protected‑disclosure detriment claim and dismiss all other complaints.

Legal Issues (5)

Detriment for making a protected disclosure (whistleblowing)
unauthorised deduction of wages
failure to provide a statement of employment particulars
failure to provide an itemised pay statement
and procedural non‑compliance leading to strike‑out under Rule 38(1)(b).

GOV.UK SourceView Decision

1804627/2024 • 10 Mar 2026

lost

The Tribunal found the claimant's complaints of breaches of Regulations 5, 13 and 17 to be not well‑founded and dismissed them.

Legal Issues (4)

Whether the claimant completed a continuous 12‑week qualifying period for Reg 5
whether she was paid less than a comparable directly‑recruited employee
whether she received the same opportunity for a permanent post under Reg 13
and whether the termination amounted to prohibited detriment under Reg 17 after exercising her statutory rights.

GOV.UK SourceView Decision

6025230/2025 • 9 Mar 2026

lost

The tribunal struck out the claimant’s claims as out of time because there was no continuing series of acts and no justification to extend the limitation period.

Legal Issues (3)

Whether the out‑of‑time allegations could be treated as a continuing series of acts to extend the limitation period and
alternatively
whether it would be just and equitable to extend time in the absence of a reasonable prospect of success.

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.

Search by Claim Type

The Tribunal concluded the claimant’s reconsideration application identified no error of law or procedural defect, so it was refused.

All of the claimant's remaining claims were struck out because they were filed outside the statutory time limit and the tribunal declined to extend time, leaving it without jurisdiction.

The tribunal found the claimant was entitled to statutory holiday pay for group tuition in Period One and for both individual and group tuition in Period Two, although the claim for individual tuition in Period One was time‑barred.

The claim was struck out because the claimant did not comply with the Tribunal’s order and failed to respond to the Tribunal’s warning.

All claims were struck out because the claimant failed to establish any employment or worker status, leaving the Tribunal without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the Second Respondent had not paid the claimant the agreed redundancy sum for the period 5 July 2025 to 31 August 2025 and ordered payment of £2,806.45.

The tribunal found the discrimination claims were out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend the limitation period.

The tribunal found the claimant was not disabled during the relevant period, so the disability‑discrimination claim was dismissed while the remaining complaints continue.

The Tribunal found that the claimant's claims of indirect disability discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments were not upheld.

The Tribunal held that time spent in Early Conciliation before the primary limitation period does not count, so the claim was filed seven days late and was therefore struck out for lack of jurisdiction.

All of the claimant's claims were found to be not well‑founded and were dismissed.

The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim but upheld four of the disability discrimination complaints.

The claimant’s failure to attend the final hearing and to comply with case‑management orders led the Tribunal to strike out his protected‑disclosure detriment claim and dismiss all other complaints.

The Tribunal found the claimant's complaints of breaches of Regulations 5, 13 and 17 to be not well‑founded and dismissed them.

The tribunal struck out the claimant’s claims as out of time because there was no continuing series of acts and no justification to extend the limitation period.

Data sources

The tribunal found the claimant was entitled to statutory holiday pay for group tuition in Period One and for both individual and group tuition in Period Two, although the claim for individual tuition in Period One was time‑barred.

The Tribunal found that the Second Respondent had not paid the claimant the agreed redundancy sum for the period 5 July 2025 to 31 August 2025 and ordered payment of £2,806.45.

The Tribunal found the claimant's complaints of breaches of Regulations 5, 13 and 17 to be not well‑founded and dismissed them.