Sector Report
Transport & Logistics Tribunal Data Analysis
Latest legal precedents and outcome patterns in the Transport & Logistics sector based on our 12-month database analysis.
218Cases Analysed (Last 12 Months)
Historical Transport & Logistics decisions from our database catalog.
47%Success Factor
Proportion of claims won or split/upheld in our database.
53%Dismissal Rate
Claims lost or struck out due to procedural/jurisdictional issues.
↑ Strongest IndicatorDisability Discrimination (60% Success)
↓ Weakest IndicatorDiscrimination (0% Success)
Search by Claim Type
Showing 23 cases from the last 2 months.
6006332/2024 • 26 Feb 2026
other
The tribunal dismissed the respondent’s application to strike out the claim, allowing it to proceed, but ordered the claimant to pay a deposit.
Legal Issues (8)
- Abuse of process
- strike‑out under Rule 38 (scandalous/vexatious
- no reasonable prospect of success
- lack of causation
- no detriment
- time‑limit issues)
- victimisation under s.123 Equality Act 2010
- and the appropriateness of a deposit order.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
3300672/2024 • 19 Feb 2026
won
The Tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed and suffered multiple acts of victimisation, so his claims were upheld.
Legal Issues (7)
- Victimisation
- aiding and abetting discrimination
- unfair dismissal
- automatic unfair dismissal
- protected disclosure detriment
- direct race and sex discrimination
- harassment.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
1306010/2024 • 17 Feb 2026
lost
The tribunal concluded the claimant’s unfair dismissal claim was not well founded and dismissed it.
Legal Issues (1)
- Whether the dismissal complied with statutory fairness requirements under UK employment law; assessment of the claimant's unfair dismissal claim.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6002718/2025 • 17 Feb 2026
struck_out
The tribunal struck out the claimant’s harassment and protected‑disclosure claims because they lacked the necessary specificity and a protected characteristic, giving them no reasonable prospect of success.
Legal Issues (1)
- Whether the claimant’s alleged harassment and protected‑disclosure claims had a reasonable prospect of success; the statutory requirements for a qualifying disclosure under ERA 1996 s 43B and for harassment under the Equality Act 2010; the tribunal’s power to strike out claims under Rule 38(1)(a); and the limits on amending a claim out of time.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
1306383/2024 • 17 Feb 2026
won
The tribunal concluded that the employer’s policies were indirectly discriminatory on grounds of sex and that the dismissal was unfair, so the claimant’s claims were upheld.
Legal Issues (1)
- Indirect sex discrimination under s 39 Equality Act 2010; failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability (found not to breach); unfair dismissal under s 94 Employment Rights Act 1996.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6003542/2024 • 16 Feb 2026
lost
The tribunal found the claimant's allegations of disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments and victimisation were not well‑founded.
Legal Issues (2)
- Claims under the Equality Act 2010 for disability discrimination
- failure to make reasonable adjustments and victimisation.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6023111/2024 • 12 Feb 2026
split
The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed for lack of the required two‑year service, while the claims for unauthorised deductions, notice pay and holiday pay were upheld.
Legal Issues (4)
- Jurisdiction for unfair dismissal (two‑year qualifying period)
- unauthorised wage deductions
- breach of contract for notice pay
- and failure to pay accrued holiday pay.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6027164/2025 • 12 Feb 2026
split
The judge determined the claimant had not withdrawn his claim against the second respondent, so the dismissal was set aside and the claim reinstated.
Legal Issues (3)
- Whether the claimant’s withdrawal applied to both respondents
- compliance with Rule 90 (copying correspondence)
- and the proper application of Rules 50 and 51 concerning withdrawal and dismissal of claims.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
8001875/2025 • 11 Feb 2026
lost
The Tribunal concluded the claimant’s colour‑blindness did not have a substantial adverse effect on his normal day‑to‑day activities, so he was not a disabled person for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010.
Legal Issues (2)
- Whether the claimant’s colour‑vision deficiency satisfied the statutory definition of disability under s 6 Equality Act 2010 (substantial and long‑term adverse effect on day‑to‑day activities); related claims of indirect discrimination
- failure to make reasonable adjustments and victimisation.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
2301193/2022 • 11 Feb 2026
lost
The Tribunal concluded the dismissal was based on a genuine belief of misconduct and was reasonable, so none of the claimant's unfair dismissal or victimisation claims succeeded.
Legal Issues (1)
- Victimisation under Equality Act 2010 s27; automatic unfair dismissal under ERA s104/104A for asserting statutory rights; ordinary unfair dismissal under ERA s98; respondent's counter‑claim for breach of contract.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
3305183/2024 • 11 Feb 2026
struck_out
The claim was struck out because it duplicated a claim already pending elsewhere, constituting an abuse of the tribunal process.
Legal Issues (1)
- Abuse of process and duplicate proceedings; application of Rule 38(1)(b) to strike out claims; need to seek reconsideration of a withdrawn claim rather than re‑filing in another region.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
1400129/2025 • 9 Feb 2026
lost
The tribunal found, on the balance of probabilities, that the claimant was always employed as a Transport Operator and no breach of contract occurred, and even if a breach existed, it caused no loss.
Legal Issues (3)
- Whether the claimant’s contractual role was breached by being trained in Customer Services
- whether the dismissal during probation was lawful
- and whether any breach (if found) caused loss for which damages could be awarded.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6024425/2025 • 8 Feb 2026
won
The tribunal found the deduction to be unauthorised and ordered the employer to repay the amount.
Legal Issues (1)
- Whether the deduction from wages was authorised under the employment contract and statutory provisions governing unlawful deductions.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6010480/2025 • 4 Feb 2026
lost
The judge concluded the claimant was not disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act, so the claim was dismissed.
Legal Issues (1)
- Whether the claimant fell within the definition of ‘disabled’ under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6022902/2024 • 2 Feb 2026
struck_out
The claim was struck out as scandalous, vexatious and having no reasonable prospect of success, rendering a fair hearing impossible.
Legal Issues (2)
- Whether the Equality Act 2010 s55 (service‑provider discrimination) applied; jurisdiction to hear the claim; strike‑out under Tribunal Rule 38 for a scandalous
- vexatious claim with no reasonable prospect of success.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
2304556/2023 • 1 Feb 2026
lost
The tribunal found no evidence of less favourable treatment or discriminatory motive and therefore dismissed all of the claimant’s discrimination, harassment and victimisation claims.
Legal Issues (5)
- Whether the claimant suffered less favourable treatment because of her protected characteristics (sex
- age) and whether the conduct amounted to harassment or victimisation under sections 13
- 14
- 26 and 27 of the Equality Act 2010
- including the need for appropriate comparators.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6029720/2025 • 30 Jan 2026
lost
The Tribunal found the claimant’s evidence unreliable, accepted the respondent’s evidence of misconduct, and concluded the dismissal for gross misconduct was fair.
Legal Issues (4)
- Whether the dismissal was for genuine misconduct
- whether the employer acted reasonably and followed a fair procedure
- compliance with the ACAS Code of Practice
- and the entitlement to any compensatory or basic award for unfair dismissal.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
1301656/2025 • 29 Jan 2026
struck_out
The claimant did not pay the required deposits, so the Tribunal struck out all of the complaints under rule 40(4).
Legal Issues (2)
- Failure to pay tribunal‑ordered deposit leading to striking out of claims; alleged discrimination (belief
- marriage); alleged protected disclosures detriment/unfair dismissal; alleged breach of blacklist regulations.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
8001287/2024 • 29 Jan 2026
lost
The Tribunal refused the respondent’s expenses application, finding the claimant had not demonstrated the requisite unreasonable or vexatious conduct and that the claim had been withdrawn, so no costs were awarded.
Legal Issues (1)
- Determination of employee/worker status for unfair dismissal and whistleblowing protection; assessment of whether the claimant’s conduct justified an expenses (costs) order under Rule 76 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6003895/2024 • 27 Jan 2026
split
The tribunal found the employer had discriminated against and harassed the claimant by being evasive about his disability status and misapplying a Bradford factor score, so some of the claimant’s disability‑related claims succeeded while others were dismissed.
Legal Issues (4)
- Disability discrimination (direct and indirect) under the Equality Act 2010
- disability‑related harassment
- misuse of the Bradford factor
- and alleged failure to make reasonable adjustments.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
8001577/2025 • 27 Jan 2026
won
The tribunal concluded that the claimant’s atrial fibrillation caused a substantial, long‑term adverse effect on his day‑to‑day activities, meeting the statutory definition of disability.
Legal Issues (3)
- Whether the claimant’s atrial fibrillation and medication‑induced fatigue satisfied the Equality Act 2010 definition of disability – i.e.
- a physical impairment with a substantial and long‑term adverse effect on normal day‑to‑day activities
- including consideration of the effect of treatment.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
1801705/2025 • 26 Jan 2026
won
The Tribunal held the unfair dismissal claim was well‑founded because the dismissal was procedurally unfair and the employer failed to follow the ACAS Code and provide the relevant SOP at the time of the incident.
Legal Issues (6)
- Whether the dismissal was for a potentially fair reason (misconduct)
- whether the employer reasonably believed the misconduct occurred
- whether a proper investigation and procedural fairness were observed
- whether the sanction was within the band of reasonable responses
- the effect of any contributory fault
- and breach of the ACAS Code of Practice.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
3302847/2024 • 26 Jan 2026
won
The tribunal found the dismissal to be unfair and ordered the employer to pay the claimant a basic and compensatory award.
Legal Issues (1)
- Whether the dismissal complied with statutory fairness requirements; entitlement to a basic award and compensatory award for unfair dismissal.
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.