Sector Report
Healthcare Tribunal Data Analysis
Latest legal precedents and outcome patterns in the Healthcare sector based on our 12-month database analysis.
299Cases Analysed (Last 12 Months)
Historical Healthcare decisions from our database catalog.
36%Success Factor
Proportion of claims won or split/upheld in our database.
64%Dismissal Rate
Claims lost or struck out due to procedural/jurisdictional issues.
↑ Strongest IndicatorDisability discrimination (44% Success)
↓ Weakest IndicatorDiscrimination (0% Success)
Search by Claim Type
Showing 25 cases from the last 2 months.
6012145/2026 • 3 Jun 2026
other
The claimant's application for interim relief was refused; no substantive verdict on the main claim was reached.
Legal Issues (1)
- Interim relief criteria under employment law; no substantive determination on the underlying claim.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6018520/2024 • 29 May 2026
lost
All of the claimant's claims (sexual harassment, victimisation, whistleblowing detriment, health and safety detriment, unfair dismissal, and automatically unfair dismissal) were dismissed as not well-founded.
Legal Issues (1)
- Key legal issues included: limitation under s.123 EqA 2010 and s.48 ERA 1996; whether sexual harassment occurred; whether protected acts were made; whether disclosures qualified as public interest disclosures; whether the claimant suffered detriment because of protected acts/disclosures; whether the dismissal was fair under s.98 ERA 1996 and automatically unfair under s.103A ERA 1996.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
3313551/2023 • 28 May 2026
other
The tribunal found that the complaints were not presented within the primary time limit, but it was not reasonably practicable to do so, and they were presented within a further reasonable period, so the claims will proceed to a full hearing.
Legal Issues (1)
- Whether the claims were presented within the applicable time limit; whether it was reasonably practicable to present them in time; whether they were presented within a further reasonable period.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6014253/2025 • 28 May 2026
jurisdiction_dismissal
The Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the claimant did not have the required two years' qualifying service for an ordinary unfair constructive dismissal claim.
Legal Issues (1)
- Jurisdiction; qualifying period of continuous employment for unfair dismissal; constructive dismissal under section 95(1)(c) ERA 1996.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6004312/2024 • 28 May 2026
other
The judgment text is incomplete, ending mid-sentence in the 'Issues' section, so no substantive verdict or award can be determined.
Legal Issues (6)
- Discrimination arising from disability (s.15 EqA 2010)
- Failure to make reasonable adjustments (ss.20-21 EqA 2010)
- Victimisation (s.27 EqA 2010)
- Time limits (s.123 EqA 2010)
- Disability knowledge
- Just and equitable extension
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6030227/2025 • 22 May 2026
lost
All claims were dismissed as not well-founded.
Legal Issues (2)
- Automatic unfair dismissal (whistleblowing)
- direct discrimination and harassment on grounds of race and sex.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6014314/2024 • 22 May 2026
struck_out
The claimant failed to comply with Tribunal orders and did not actively pursue the claim, making a fair final hearing impossible.
Legal Issues (3)
- Strike out under Rule 38 of the ET Procedure Rules 2024 for failure to comply with orders
- failure to actively pursue the claim
- and inability to have a fair final hearing.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6014701/2026 • 21 May 2026
other
The application for interim relief was refused because the claimant did not demonstrate a 'pretty good chance' of succeeding at the final hearing on her claim of automatic unfair dismissal for making protected disclosures.
Legal Issues (3)
- Application for interim relief under s.128 Employment Rights Act 1996; burden on claimant to show 'likely' (pretty good chance) of success at final hearing on all elements of automatic unfair dismissal for protected disclosure (s.103A); meaning of 'likely' per Chacko
- Taplin
- Sarfraz; no oral evidence under Rule 94.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6031742/2025 • 21 May 2026
won
The complaint of unfair dismissal was well-founded because the respondent did not act reasonably due to procedural failings, but the compensatory award was reduced by 90% under Polkey and no future loss was awarded due to failure to mitigate.
Legal Issues (1)
- Unfair dismissal – whether the employer acted reasonably in treating 'some other substantial reason' (recruitment freeze) as sufficient to dismiss; procedural fairness; Polkey reduction for chance of dismissal in any event; failure to mitigate loss.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
3307564/2020 • 21 May 2026
lost
The claimant failed to prove that her impairment was likely to last 12 months at the relevant time, as the evidence showed her pain had substantially resolved within 3 months.
Legal Issues (1)
- Definition of disability under s.6 Equality Act 2010; whether the adverse effect of the impairment was 'long-term' (had lasted or was likely to last 12 months) assessed at the date of the acts complained of; burden of proof on the claimant.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6017889/2024 • 18 May 2026
struck_out
The unfair dismissal claim was struck out for lack of jurisdiction due to insufficient service, and the entire claim was subsequently struck out for failure to comply with tribunal orders and lack of active pursuit.
Legal Issues (1)
- Jurisdiction for unfair dismissal under s.108 ERA 1996 (2-year qualifying period); striking out under Rule 38 for non-compliance and inability to have a fair hearing.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
3302627/2025 • 18 May 2026
struck_out
The claims were struck out because the settlement agreement barred claims arising before 11 June 2024, the claim against Dr Halpin had no reasonable prospect of success due to lack of employment relationship, and the remaining claims were out of time or had no reasonable prospect of success.
Legal Issues (1)
- Strike-out application under rule 38(1)(a); validity of settlement agreement; fraudulent misrepresentation; economic duress; jurisdiction over claims against non-employer individuals; time limits.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
2601070/2024 • 18 May 2026
split
The claim of unfair dismissal succeeded but with a 75% Polkey deduction, while all disability discrimination complaints were dismissed.
Legal Issues (1)
- Unfair dismissal with Polkey reduction; disability discrimination claims under sections 15 and 20/21 Equality Act 2010; remedy reserved.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6003225/2025 • 15 May 2026
won
The Respondent was found liable for wrongful dismissal, unlawful deductions of wages, and failure to provide employment particulars.
Legal Issues (3)
- Breach of contract (notice pay)
- Unlawful deduction of wages (Employment Rights Act 1996)
- and failure to provide written statement of employment particulars (Section 38 ERA 1996).
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6018304/2024 • 15 May 2026
lost
All claims were dismissed under Rule 47 because the claimant did not attend the hearing.
Legal Issues (1)
- Claims dismissed under Rule 47 due to claimant's non-attendance at the hearing.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6013292/2026 • 14 May 2026
lost
The Employment Judge ruled that the claimant's application for interim relief did not succeed.
Legal Issues (1)
- Whether the claimant met the high threshold for the granting of interim relief (typically involving claims of automatic unfair dismissal or trade union activities).
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6003629/2024 • 14 May 2026
struck_out
The respondents' response was struck out due to failure to attend hearings, comply with orders, and actively pursue their case, despite warnings.
Legal Issues (3)
- Striking out of response under Rule 38 and/or Rule 47 for failure to attend hearing
- non-compliance with Tribunal orders
- and failure to actively pursue the response
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6006943/2025 • 13 May 2026
split
The substantive claims for unfair dismissal and breach of contract were dismissed, although the judge issued a declaration that the respondent failed to provide a timely itemised pay statement.
Legal Issues (3)
- Qualifying period for unfair dismissal
- contractual notice requirements
- and the statutory right to itemised pay statements under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6022697/2024 • 12 May 2026
won
The claimant succeeded on all claims because the respondent dismissed her and treated her unfavourably due to her pregnancy, and unlawfully deducted wages.
Legal Issues (1)
- Automatic unfair dismissal for pregnancy-related reason; pregnancy discrimination (direct and by association); failure to provide written reasons for dismissal; unlawful deduction from wages; failure to redeploy or suspend on full pay under sections 67 and 68 ERA 1996.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
2400793/2024 • 11 May 2026
won
The Tribunal found that the claimant was disabled at the relevant time due to his knee impairment.
Legal Issues (1)
- Whether the claimant's knee impairment constituted a disability within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
1804451/2025 • 8 May 2026
lost
The claimant failed to prove that any alleged detrimental treatment was because of her protected act, as the evidence showed the manager had no issue with her work and the allocation of tasks was not linked to the grievance.
Legal Issues (2)
- Victimisation under s.27 Equality Act 2010; burden of proof; whether alleged detriments (extra scrutiny
- unfair work allocation) were because of the protected act.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
2410971/2023 • 8 May 2026
split
The claimant succeeded on some whistleblowing detriment claims against the first respondent and some sexual harassment claims against the second respondent, but failed on all other claims; a remedy hearing was ordered.
Legal Issues (1)
- Protected disclosures (whistleblowing) under s.47B ERA 1996; sexual harassment under s.26 EqA 2010; employer liability for employee harassment under s.109 EqA 2010; fixed-term worker less favourable treatment; victimisation; direct sex discrimination.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
2404641/2024 • 8 May 2026
other
The claim was presented in time but not via a prescribed method; the Tribunal waived the requirement to comply with the Practice Direction, allowing the claim to continue to a final hearing.
Legal Issues (1)
- Whether the claim was validly presented in time and via an acceptable method under Rule 83(2) of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2024 and the Presidential Practice Direction of 2 March 2020. The Tribunal considered the power to waive irregularities under Rule 6 and the Court of Appeal decision in Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Clark.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
2403670/2024 • 8 May 2026
split
The Tribunal upheld claims regarding an inappropriate interrogation and removal of access, but dismissed all other complaints of detriment.
Legal Issues (1)
- Whether the claimants suffered detriments as a result of making protected disclosures under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6013399/2025 • 7 May 2026
struck_out
The claimant had less than two years' service and therefore could not bring an unfair dismissal complaint; the claim was struck out.
Legal Issues (1)
- Qualifying period of continuous employment (two years) for unfair dismissal claims; strike out application for lack of jurisdiction.
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.