Sector Report

Healthcare Tribunal Data Analysis

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

190Cases Analysed (Last 12 Months)

Historical Healthcare decisions from our database catalog.

39%Success Factor

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

61%Dismissal Rate

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

↑ Strongest IndicatorDisability discrimination (57% Success)

↓ Weakest IndicatorDiscrimination (0% Success)

Search by Claim Type

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

Showing 16 cases from the last 2 months.

1303366/2024 • 20 Feb 2026

split

The tribunal upheld the claim that the Trust failed to provide the required auxiliary aid, but dismissed all other reasonable‑adjustment and victimisation claims.

Legal Issues (1)

Whether the employer breached its duty to make reasonable adjustments under s20‑21 Equality Act 2010; ancillary claim of victimisation under s27 Equality Act 2010.

GOV.UK SourceView Decision

1403647/2022 • 14 Feb 2026

lost

The tribunal found the claimant had not established any less‑favourable treatment linked to his sexual orientation and the claims were time‑barred, so all claims were dismissed.

Legal Issues (1)

Whether the claim was made within the three‑month time limit (with Early Conciliation extension) under s 123 Equality Act 2010; whether the respondent treated the claimant less favourably because of his sexual orientation (direct discrimination s 13); whether the conduct amounted to harassment (s 26); and whether the claimant could establish a comparator and the causal link to the protected characteristic.

GOV.UK SourceView Decision

2300071/2025 • 13 Feb 2026

won

The Tribunal found the employer had committed a repudiatory breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, making the dismissal unfair and wrongful, and ordered the respondent to pay compensation.

Legal Issues (4)

Whether the employer breached the implied term of trust and confidence
whether that breach was fundamental and repudiatory
the test for constructive dismissal
and the interaction between unfair and wrongful dismissal claims.

GOV.UK SourceView Decision

2304981/2022 • 13 Feb 2026

lost

All of the claimant's complaints were found to be without merit and were dismissed.

Legal Issues (3)

Alleged discrimination
victimisation
protected disclosure detriment and constructive unfair dismissal.

GOV.UK SourceView Decision

3309014/2024 • 10 Feb 2026

lost

The tribunal concluded the claimant had not made a qualifying protected disclosure, so her unfair dismissal and detriment claims were not well founded.

Legal Issues (3)

Whether the claimant made a protected disclosure under s43 ERA 1996
whether any detriment was suffered on that ground under s47B
and whether the dismissal was automatically unfair under s103A; also compliance with the Acas Code of Practice.

GOV.UK SourceView Decision

6009777/2025 • 10 Feb 2026

lost

The tribunal found the claimant's allegations unsubstantiated and dismissed all three claims.

Legal Issues (1)

Unfair dismissal; disability discrimination; failure to make reasonable adjustments.

GOV.UK SourceView Decision

6001381/2025 • 6 Feb 2026

won

The tribunal found the claimant's unfair and wrongful dismissal claims to be well‑founded.

Legal Issues (1)

Unfair dismissal claim; wrongful dismissal claim; determination of liability before remedy hearing.

GOV.UK SourceView Decision

1402549/2024 • 4 Feb 2026

lost

All of the claimant's claims were dismissed because they were filed out of time.

Legal Issues (6)

Statutory time limits for bringing unfair dismissal
wrongful dismissal
protected disclosure detriment
holiday pay
unlawful deduction
and discrimination/harassment/victimisation claims; assessment of whether it was reasonably practicable to file within those limits.

GOV.UK SourceView Decision

3334608/2018 • 4 Feb 2026

other

The case was remitted for fresh determination of the claimant’s employment status and the meaning of Clause 36, with no final judgment rendered in the provided text.

Legal Issues (1)

Whether the claimant was an employee within the meaning of ERA s 230; construction of Clause 36 of the Associates Agreement; entitlement to automatic unfair dismissal under s 103A ERA; entitlement to interim relief and back‑pay.

GOV.UK SourceView Decision

6007037/2024 • 3 Feb 2026

struck_out

The tribunal struck out the claim because it had no reasonable prospect of success.

Legal Issues (1)

Whether the claimant’s discrimination and wage‑deduction claims had any reasonable prospect of success; application of r38(1)(a) to strike out the claim; interpretation of Agenda for Change terms and London weighting as a non‑discriminatory reason for pay differentials.

GOV.UK SourceView Decision

2500451/2025 • 2 Feb 2026

jurisdiction_dismissal

The claim was filed out of time and no evidence justified an extension, so the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear it.

Legal Issues (1)

Whether the claimant filed the unfair dismissal claim within the required time limit and whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the claim.

GOV.UK SourceView Decision

6013797/2024 • 2 Feb 2026

struck_out

The claim was struck out because the COT3 settlement agreement covered all alleged causes of action, leaving the claimant with no reasonable prospect of success.

Legal Issues (2)

Whether the COT3 settlement agreement bars the claimant’s discrimination
TUPE and pension‑related claims; the tribunal’s jurisdiction to set aside the settlement; and the reasonableness of striking out a claim with no prospect of success.

GOV.UK SourceView Decision

6007360/2024 • 27 Jan 2026

lost

The Tribunal concluded that the unfair dismissal claim was not well founded and that the claimant was not constructively dismissed.

Legal Issues (3)

Whether the Trust breached the implied term of trust and confidence
whether the claimant was constructively dismissed
and the status of withdrawn age and race discrimination claims.

GOV.UK SourceView Decision

8002191/2025 • 27 Jan 2026

won

The Tribunal concluded the respondent’s withdrawal of the vehicle‑use term (and related handling of the grievance) was a fundamental breach, making the claimant’s resignation a constructive unfair dismissal.

Legal Issues (2)

Whether withdrawal of the vehicle‑use entitlement and alleged failure to follow the ACAS grievance procedure amounted to a fundamental breach of contract
giving rise to constructive unfair dismissal and the appropriate compensation.

GOV.UK SourceView Decision

3308158/2023 • 27 Jan 2026

split

The tribunal found the employer discriminated against the claimant on the basis of pregnancy/maternity by refusing her request for changed responsibilities and by failing to investigate her grievance, while dismissing the other claims.

Legal Issues (5)

Pregnancy/maternity discrimination
failure to handle grievance
holiday pay under Working Time Regulations
unauthorised wage deductions
duty to provide written statement of employment particulars.

GOV.UK SourceView Decision

3305865/2022 • 26 Jan 2026

split

The Tribunal held that the claim of race‑related harassment against the Second Respondent was well‑founded, but dismissed all other discrimination and harassment claims.

Legal Issues (4)

Claims under the Equality Act 2010: direct race discrimination (s13)
harassment related to race (s26(1))
harassment related to sex (s26(1))
and sexual harassment (s26(2)); the employer’s duty to take reasonable steps to prevent third‑party harassment.

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 upheld the claim that the Trust failed to provide the required auxiliary aid, but dismissed all other reasonable‑adjustment and victimisation claims.

The tribunal found the claimant had not established any less‑favourable treatment linked to his sexual orientation and the claims were time‑barred, so all claims were dismissed.

The Tribunal found the employer had committed a repudiatory breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, making the dismissal unfair and wrongful, and ordered the respondent to pay compensation.

All of the claimant's complaints were found to be without merit and were dismissed.

The tribunal concluded the claimant had not made a qualifying protected disclosure, so her unfair dismissal and detriment claims were not well founded.

The tribunal found the claimant's allegations unsubstantiated and dismissed all three claims.

The tribunal found the claimant's unfair and wrongful dismissal claims to be well‑founded.

All of the claimant's claims were dismissed because they were filed out of time.

The case was remitted for fresh determination of the claimant’s employment status and the meaning of Clause 36, with no final judgment rendered in the provided text.

The tribunal struck out the claim because it had no reasonable prospect of success.

The claim was filed out of time and no evidence justified an extension, so the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear it.

The claim was struck out because the COT3 settlement agreement covered all alleged causes of action, leaving the claimant with no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal concluded that the unfair dismissal claim was not well founded and that the claimant was not constructively dismissed.

The Tribunal concluded the respondent’s withdrawal of the vehicle‑use term (and related handling of the grievance) was a fundamental breach, making the claimant’s resignation a constructive unfair dismissal.

The tribunal found the employer discriminated against the claimant on the basis of pregnancy/maternity by refusing her request for changed responsibilities and by failing to investigate her grievance, while dismissing the other claims.

The Tribunal held that the claim of race‑related harassment against the Second Respondent was well‑founded, but dismissed all other discrimination and harassment claims.

Data sources

The case was remitted for fresh determination of the claimant’s employment status and the meaning of Clause 36, with no final judgment rendered in the provided text.