Sector Report
Retail Tribunal Data Analysis
Latest legal precedents and outcome patterns in the Retail sector based on our 12-month database analysis.
153Cases Analysed (Last 12 Months)
Historical Retail 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 (67% Success)
↓ Weakest IndicatorUnfair dismissal (29% Success)
Search by Claim Type
Showing 16 cases from the last 2 months.
1806147/2025 • 30 Mar 2026
lost
The tribunal concluded the claimant’s unfair dismissal claim was not well founded and dismissed it.
Legal Issues (3)
- Whether the dismissal was for a potentially fair reason (conduct)
- whether the employer had reasonable grounds and conducted a proper investigation
- and whether the overall procedure met the requirements for a fair dismissal under employment law.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6001387/2026 • 26 Mar 2026
lost
The tribunal concluded the claimant had not made a protected disclosure nor shown a sufficiently high likelihood of succeeding on the claim, so his application for interim relief was refused.
Legal Issues (6)
- Whether the claimant made a protected disclosure under s43B ERA (including the requirement of a reasonable belief that the disclosure was in the public interest)
- and whether it is ‘likely’—i.e.
- a ‘pretty good chance’—that his dismissal was for that protected disclosure
- applying the tests set out in Taplin
- Safraz
- and Hancock.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
3311661/2024 • 23 Mar 2026
split
The tribunal held the First Claimant was unfairly dismissed because no fair reason or procedure was shown, whereas the Second Claimant lacked the requisite two years’ continuous service to bring an unfair dismissal claim, though both succeeded on wrongful dismissal and the failure to provide employment particulars.
Legal Issues (4)
- Unfair dismissal (service length and lack of fair reason)
- wrongful dismissal (no notice)
- direct and indirect race/age discrimination
- failure to provide a statement of employment particulars under s.38 ERA.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
4107720/2024 • 19 Mar 2026
lost
All of the claimant's claims – unfair dismissal, automatically unfair dismissal, whistleblowing detriment and marriage discrimination – were dismissed by the tribunal.
Legal Issues (1)
- Whether the claimant was fairly dismissed under ERA s98; whether the dismissal was automatically unfair under ERA s104; whether the claimant suffered protected whistleblowing detriment under ERA s47C; whether there was direct marital status discrimination under Equality Act s13; and whether any time‑limit or jurisdictional issues applied.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6006678/2024 • 19 Mar 2026
lost
The claim was dismissed because the claimant did not attend the hearing or engage with the tribunal, and the respondent did not defend the claim.
Legal Issues (2)
- Procedural compliance – claimant’s failure to attend the hearing or supply evidence
- and the effect of the respondent’s liquidation and non‑defence on the tribunal’s ability to hear the claim.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6040292/2025 • 19 Mar 2026
other
The Tribunal refused the claimant's application to strike out the respondent's defence, allowing the claim to continue.
Legal Issues (1)
- Unfair dismissal; sex discrimination; disability discrimination; fairness of redundancy selection and the statutory duty to offer suitable alternative employment to a colleague on maternity leave.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
1806680/2025 • 18 Mar 2026
won
Both claimants proved the employer made unauthorised wage deductions and breached the duty to provide written terms, leading the tribunal to order payment of the sums claimed.
Legal Issues (1)
- Unauthorised wage deductions and breach of the statutory duty to provide written terms and conditions of employment under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
1602958/2025 • 18 Mar 2026
lost
The Tribunal found that the claimant's complaints of harassment, victimisation and unauthorised wage deductions failed and dismissed them.
Legal Issues (2)
- Claims of harassment
- victimisation and unauthorised deduction from wages under employment law.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6040979/2025 • 17 Mar 2026
other
The tribunal struck out the claimant's claims against the individual respondents as having no reasonable prospect of success, leaving only the claim against the corporate employer to proceed to a full hearing.
Legal Issues (2)
- Whether wage‑related claims can be brought against individual directors/officers rather than the corporate employer
- and the statutory basis for claims under the Employment Rights Act 1996 and Working Time Regulations 1998.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6026992/2025 • 13 Mar 2026
lost
The Tribunal concluded there was no reasonable prospect of varying the original decision and that the claimant’s grounds had already been fully considered, so the reconsideration application was refused.
Legal Issues (6)
- Procedural fairness of dismissal
- right to access evidence
- entitlement to breaks and reasonable adjustments during tribunal evidence
- duty to undertake corroborative enquiries
- application of Rule 68/70 for reconsideration
- and the principle of finality in tribunal judgments.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6005147/2025 • 12 Mar 2026
won
The Tribunal concluded there was no reasonable prospect of varying the original decision and refused the employer’s application for reconsideration, leaving the claimant’s award of £597 for unauthorised wage deductions in place.
Legal Issues (1)
- Whether the employer’s reduction of hours and resulting wage deductions constituted unauthorised deductions; procedural compliance with response deadlines; the Tribunal’s power to reconsider judgments under Rules 68‑71 and the principle of finality of litigation.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6030341/2025 • 12 Mar 2026
split
The unfair dismissal claim was struck out because the claimant failed to show an assertion of a relevant statutory right, giving the claim no reasonable prospect of success.
Legal Issues (1)
- Whether a claim under s104 ERA can proceed without the two‑year service requirement; whether the claimant actually asserted a relevant statutory right (statutory notice) in his communications; the high threshold for striking out a claim under Rule 38 of the ET Constitution & Rules; distinction between statutory and contractual notice entitlements.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
8002352/2025 • 11 Mar 2026
struck_out
The unfair dismissal claim was struck out because the claimant lacked the requisite two years of service and did not provide the required representations.
Legal Issues (1)
- Whether the claimant satisfied the two‑year qualifying period for an unfair dismissal claim under s108(1) ERA and whether the claim should be struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) for having no reasonable prospect of success.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6001692/2025 • 10 Mar 2026
lost
The claimant had less than two years of service, so the unfair dismissal and redundancy claims were struck out.
Legal Issues (1)
- Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' continuous service to bring an unfair dismissal claim or claim a redundancy payment; the claimant did not meet this threshold.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6023361/2025 • 10 Mar 2026
other
The Tribunal struck out the respondent’s response on procedural grounds but did not make a final determination on the claimant’s unfair dismissal claim.
Legal Issues (1)
- Unfair dismissal; entitlement to a continuation order under s130 Employment Rights Act 1996; calculation of interim pay at minimum wage; procedural striking out of the respondent’s response under Tribunal Rules 37 and 38.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
2309138/2025 • 8 Mar 2026
won
The Tribunal held that the deduction of the claimant’s contractual sick pay was unlawful and ordered the employer to pay the amount owed.
Legal Issues (1)
- Whether the employer’s stoppage of contractual sick pay constituted an unlawful deduction of wages under s13 ERA 1996 and whether such a deduction was authorised by the contract under s14(4)(a) ERA 1996.
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.