Employment Tribunal decisions and outcome patterns in the Retail sector from the last 12 months.
Final Retail 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 20 cases from the last 2 months.
Browse the latest published decisions for employers represented in this sector sample.
The claim was struck out due to the claimant's non-compliance with case management orders and failure to actively pursue the claim.
Reference: 2300390/2026
The claim was struck out due to the claimant's failure to comply with a Tribunal order and to actively pursue the claim.
Reference: 6045089/2025
The tribunal dismissed both claims due to lack of jurisdiction: the breach of contract claim did not arise on termination because the claimants' employment transferred under TUPE, and both claims were presented out of time with no reasonable excuse for the delay.
Reference: 2300585/2026
The entire claim was struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success, given the substantial delay, the failure to establish the respondents' personal responsibility, and the claims falling outside Employment Tribunal jurisdiction.
Reference: 6002467/2024
The unfair dismissal claim was struck out due to lack of service, while the discrimination claim continues, resulting in a split final outcome.
Reference: 6042303/2025
The tribunal found the unfair dismissal complaint not well-founded and dismissed it.
Reference: 2304165/2025
The tribunal dismissed both disability discrimination complaints as not well-founded.
Reference: 2406806/2024
The claims for a protective award were well-founded because the respondent failed to consult the claimants before dismissal.
Reference: 2402715/2026
The Tribunal determined that the claimant was not a disabled person at the relevant times, meaning his disability discrimination claim cannot succeed.
Reference: 6015844/2024
The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed (lost) but the wrongful dismissal claim succeeded (won), resulting in a split outcome.
Reference: 2309092/2024
The claim was struck out because the claimant lacked the requisite two years' continuous service for an unfair dismissal claim, the claim was presented significantly out of time, and the claimant failed to actively pursue the claim or comply with case management directions.
Reference: 6012922/2025
The claimant was fairly dismissed, so the unfair dismissal claim was not well-founded and failed on its merits.
Reference: 6010495/2025
The claim was struck out under Rule 47 because the claimant failed to attend the preliminary hearing and had not progressed the case.
Reference: 2400226/2024
The tribunal found the complaint well-founded and made a protective award of 90 days' remuneration.
Reference: 6042326/2025
Both discrimination claims were dismissed as not well-founded after a full merits hearing.
Reference: 6000660/2025
All claims were unsuccessful: the unfair dismissal claim was struck out for being out of time, and the discrimination and harassment claims were dismissed on the merits.
Reference: 6016159/2024
The claimant succeeded on her harassment claim and received compensation for injury to feelings, but her other claims were dismissed or withdrawn.
Reference: 8001491/2025
The claim was struck out in its entirety because the claimant failed to actively pursue it, having made no contact since filing and not complying with orders or attending the hearing.
Reference: 6045519/2025
The claimant was unfairly dismissed but the compensation was reduced to zero due to his own conduct.
Reference: 6000243/2026
The Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the complaint was presented substantially out of time and it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented it by June 2024, so no extension was justified.
Reference: 8000510/2026