Sector Report
Education Tribunal Data Analysis
Latest legal precedents and outcome patterns in the Education sector based on our 12-month database analysis.
108Cases Analysed (Last 12 Months)
Historical Education decisions from our database catalog.
43%Success Factor
Proportion of claims won or split/upheld in our database.
57%Dismissal Rate
Claims lost or struck out due to procedural/jurisdictional issues.
↑ Strongest IndicatorUnfair dismissal (75% Success)
↓ Weakest IndicatorUnfair Dismissal (26% Success)
Search by Claim Type
Showing 10 cases from the last 2 months.
3200732/2025 • 23 Feb 2026
won
The tribunal concluded the claimant was employed and was unlawfully denied payment of £200 training fees and £820 for her final two weeks, breaching Section 13 ERA 1996.
Legal Issues (2)
- Whether the employer made unlawful deductions from wages in breach of Section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- and whether an employment relationship existed for the period claimed.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
3201269/2023 • 20 Feb 2026
lost
The tribunal concluded the claimant's allegations of detriment for making protected disclosures were not well‑founded and dismissed all of his claims.
Legal Issues (1)
- Whether the claimant was an employee or worker for jurisdiction; whether the University acted as an employer or agent; and whether the claimant suffered unlawful detriment for making protected disclosures.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
2402796/2020 • 20 Feb 2026
struck_out
The Tribunal struck out the claims because the claimants did not engage with the Tribunal's warning and the claims were not actively pursued.
Legal Issues (2)
- Application of Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 to strike out claims for lack of active pursuit
- in line with the overriding objective of Rule 3.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
2306883/2023 • 14 Feb 2026
lost
All of the claimant’s discrimination and harassment claims were found to be not well‑founded and were dismissed.
Legal Issues (3)
- Whether the employer’s suspension and dismissal amounted to direct sex discrimination
- direct sexual‑orientation discrimination
- and harassment on the grounds of sex and sexual orientation under Equality Act 2010 sections 11‑13 and 26.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
2303269/2025 • 13 Feb 2026
won
The tribunal concluded the claimants’ complaints of the employer’s failure to comply with the statutory consultation duties were well‑founded, granting a protective award for ninety days’ remuneration.
Legal Issues (3)
- Whether the employer breached its duty to consult under s.188 TULRCA 1992 and
- if so
- the entitlement to a protective award under s.189(3).
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6005535/2024 • 12 Feb 2026
lost
The tribunal found the disability discrimination claim was not well founded and dismissed it.
Legal Issues (1)
- Whether the claimant established a prima facie case of disability discrimination under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010; the tribunal concluded the claim was not well founded.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
2309591/2024 • 11 Feb 2026
split
The tribunal held that a TUPE transfer made the claimant automatically an employee of R2, and R2’s refusal to recognise her and subsequent dismissal amounted to an automatically unfair dismissal.
Legal Issues (4)
- Application of TUPE regulations to a service‑provision change
- automatic unfair dismissal where the transfer is the reason for dismissal
- breach of the ACAS Code of Practice
- calculation of basic and compensatory awards.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
2305012/2024 • 4 Feb 2026
struck_out
The claimant did not comply with the Tribunal's order and failed to respond to a warning letter, so the claim was struck out under Rule 38.
Legal Issues (2)
- Failure to comply with Tribunal order and lack of active pursuit of the claim
- leading to application of Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 to strike out the claim.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
3200299/2024 • 28 Jan 2026
won
The tribunal found the dismissal unfair because the employer had not acted reasonably or proportionately in responding to the claimant’s conduct and failed to properly consider his ADHD‑related vulnerabilities.
Legal Issues (3)
- Whether the dismissal was for a potentially fair reason under sections 98(1)‑(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- whether the sanction was disproportionate under section 98(4)
- and whether the employer fulfilled its duty to make reasonable adjustments for a vulnerable employee with ADHD.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
3302620/2022 • 26 Jan 2026
split
The tribunal found the claimant’s specific disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments and harassment claims regarding the equipment‑sharing request proved, but dismissed all other discrimination, adjustment, harassment and unfair dismissal claims.
Legal Issues (5)
- Whether the employer discriminated against the claimant on the basis of disability (Equality Act 2010 s15)
- failed to make reasonable adjustments (s20‑21)
- harassed him (s26)
- acted fairly in dismissing him for capability (Employment Rights Act 1996 s98)
- and whether time limits for bringing the claims could be extended under s123 Equality Act.
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.