Employment Tribunal decisions and outcome patterns in the Public Sector sector from the last 12 months.
Final Public Sector decisions with at least one determined claim.
Proportion of cases won or split/upheld in our database.
Cases lost or struck out due to procedural/jurisdictional issues.
Showing 36 cases from the last 2 months.
Browse the latest published decisions for employers represented in this sector sample.
The claimant's complaint of unlawful deductions from wages was well-founded, but the respondent had already paid the amount, so no further award was made.
Reference: 6019362/2026
The tribunal found that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed and dismissed the complaint after a full merits hearing.
Reference: 2501387/2025
The claimant's unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and most discrimination claims were dismissed, while two discrimination sub-claims were allowed to proceed on time limit grounds, resulting in a split outcome.
Reference: 6010998/2024
All claims were withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed by the Tribunal.
Reference: 6020902/2024
All claims were dismissed on the merits after a full hearing; the Tribunal found no unlawful treatment or breach of the relevant regulations.
Reference: 6012100/2024
All claims were either withdrawn or dismissed; the claimant did not succeed on any substantive claim.
Reference: 2302098/2024
The claim was dismissed as not well founded.
Reference: 2306823/2023
The tribunal held that judicial proceedings immunity applied to the decisions to dismiss the claimants, and that the EU law-based interpretation in P v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis no longer applies after Brexit, so the claims were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Reference: 1303890/2025
All claims of unfair dismissal, discrimination (including direct discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and victimisation), and harassment were dismissed after a full merits hearing.
Reference: 6005496/2024
Wrongful dismissal claim struck out (lost); other claims remain ongoing, resulting in a split substantive outcome.
Reference: 1801462/2024
All of the claimant's claims were struck out.
Reference: 6004706/2026
The Claimant's entire claim of disability discrimination and harassment was dismissed on the merits after a final hearing.
Reference: 1304424/2024
The claimant succeeded in his claim for unfair dismissal and victimisation, but his other discrimination claims and harassment claim were dismissed.
Reference: 3303462/2024
The claimant's claims were dismissed because he failed to attend the preliminary hearing without adequate explanation, constituting a deliberate and disrespectful disregard of tribunal procedures.
Reference: 6007641/2025
The entire claim was dismissed because the whistleblowing claim lacked a discernible basis and the disability discrimination claims were out of time.
Reference: 6001777/2026
One claim was dismissed as out of time (final loss) and the other was allowed to proceed (not finally determined), resulting in a split overall outcome.
Reference: 6011655/2025
All claims struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success.
Reference: 1805012/2025
The claimant succeeded on direct sex discrimination but the claim of direct race discrimination was dismissed.
Reference: 6023226/2024
The tribunal dismissed the direct race discrimination claim in its entirety, finding that the claimant had not established primary facts from which an inference of race discrimination could be drawn and that the respondent's actions were based on genuine performance and progression concerns.
Reference: 6020211/2024
Claims against individual respondents were dismissed because they were not the employer; the claim against the London Borough of Harrow remains ongoing.
Reference: 3300016/2022
The Tribunal found no discrimination or harassment as a matter of law, and the wage deductions were authorised by the claimant's contract, so all claims were dismissed on the merits.
Reference: 6004827/2024
All claims of race discrimination, harassment and discriminatory constructive dismissal were dismissed on the merits after a full hearing.
Reference: 3306924/2024
The claimant failed to attend the preliminary hearing and provided no explanation or engagement, leading to dismissal of all claims.
Reference: 6037529/2025
The Tribunal found that the claim for direct age discrimination was not well-founded and dismissed it.
Reference: 6006418/2024
The claim was dismissed because it was presented out of time and the Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the Claimant to have submitted it in time.
Reference: 1601501/2026
All claims of direct race discrimination, harassment related to race, and victimisation were dismissed on the merits after a full hearing.
Reference: 3308186/2023
The Tribunal found the dismissal was fair because the respondent had a reasonable belief in the misconduct, conducted a reasonable investigation, and the decision to dismiss was within the range of reasonable responses.
Reference: 8000298/2026
The unfair dismissal claim was struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service, and the discrimination claims were allowed to proceed after time limit extension.
Reference: 2300124/2025
The claimant succeeded on one victimisation claim but failed on other victimisation allegations and all sexual harassment claims, with remedy for the successful claim still to be determined.
Reference: 1402789/2024
The Claimant succeeded in having the physical disability of ACL damage recorded by consent, but claims based on the alleged mental disability of stress/anxiety/depression were dismissed for lack of disability while claims based on physical impairments remain outstanding.
Reference: 6022434/2025
The claim was struck out in its entirety as an abuse of process because it duplicated a previous claim and any new matters could have been raised earlier.
Reference: 3302828/2025
The Tribunal found the respondent had a genuine belief in the claimant's misconduct, reasonable grounds based on multiple witness accounts, a reasonable investigation despite some delay, and that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.
Reference: 6018279/2025
The claim was dismissed in its entirety because the claimant failed to attend the preliminary hearing and did not provide sufficient evidence to justify a postponement or to show that the claims should be allowed to proceed out of time.
Reference: 1600983/2026
All complaints were found not well-founded and dismissed.
Reference: 6021283/2024
The Tribunal found that the claimant has a disability and made a protected disclosure, but these are preliminary determinations only; the substantive claims have not been finally decided.
Reference: 8001815/2025
All active Equality Act claims failed because the claimant was not placed at a substantial disadvantage by the absence-reporting PCP, the call did not amount to harassment, and the record of discussion was not unfavourable, not disability-related and was justified.
Reference: 8002436/2025