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.
256Cases Analysed (Last 12 Months)
Historical Transport & Logistics decisions from our database catalog.
45%Success Factor
Proportion of claims won or split/upheld in our database.
55%Dismissal Rate
Claims lost or struck out due to procedural/jurisdictional issues.
↑ Strongest IndicatorUnauthorised deductions from wages (60% Success)
↓ Weakest IndicatorDiscrimination (14% Success)
Search by Claim Type
Showing 12 cases from the last 2 months.
6010952/2025 • 2 Apr 2026
split
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal, constructive unfair dismissal and redundancy claims but upheld the claim for unauthorised deduction of wages.
Legal Issues (3)
- Claims of unfair dismissal and constructive unfair dismissal under s94 ERA 1996
- failure to pay a statutory redundancy payment under s135 ERA 1996
- and unauthorised deduction of wages under s13 (and s14) ERA 1996.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6006553/2025 • 26 Mar 2026
struck_out
The tribunal struck out the claimant’s age‑discrimination claims because they had no reasonable prospect of success and were essentially a relitigation of previously dismissed matters.
Legal Issues (1)
- Whether the claimant’s age‑discrimination claims had a reasonable prospect of success; application of the strike‑out test under Rule 37(1)(a); issues of res judicata and issue estoppel from earlier dismissed claims; burden of proof on the claimant to identify comparators and link treatment to age.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
2300470/2026 • 26 Mar 2026
lost
The claim was dismissed because the claimant falsely claimed an early‑conciliation exemption that did not apply, breaching Rule 13(2).
Legal Issues (1)
- Whether the claim form satisfied the early‑conciliation requirements under Rules 12 and 13 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2024; applicability of the early‑conciliation exemption in Regulation 3(1)(c); procedural compliance versus substantive discrimination allegations.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
3303362/2024 • 20 Mar 2026
split
The tribunal dismissed the discrimination claims but upheld the claims for unlawful wage deduction, notice pay and unfair dismissal.
Legal Issues (1)
- Discrimination under the Equality Act 2010; unlawful deduction of wages; entitlement to notice pay; unfair dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996; calculation of basic and compensatory awards; application of the Recoupment Regulations.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6004546/2024 • 20 Mar 2026
won
The tribunal found the claimant had been discriminated against and awarded compensation for injury to feelings.
Legal Issues (2)
- Whether the respondent breached the Equality Act by discriminating against the claimant
- giving rise to compensable injury to feelings.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6012316/2025 • 20 Mar 2026
lost
The Tribunal upheld its original decision that the claimant’s constructive unfair dismissal claim was not well‑founded and refused the application for reconsideration.
Legal Issues (1)
- Whether the claimant’s resignation amounted to constructive unfair dismissal; the employer’s handling of compassionate/bereavement leave requests; application for reconsideration under Rules 68‑70 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
2305061/2024 • 16 Mar 2026
split
The Tribunal held the dismissal was unfair because the employer failed to follow a fair redundancy process, but found no direct age discrimination.
Legal Issues (4)
- Whether the dismissal was a fair redundancy under ERA ss 94/98 (consultation
- selection
- alternative employment
- reasonableness); whether there was direct age discrimination under Equality Act 2010 s 13; application of the ACAS Code of Practice and any resulting adjustments to compensation.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6003229/2024 • 12 Mar 2026
lost
All of the claimant's claims were dismissed (the wage claim was withdrawn), so no liability was found.
Legal Issues (2)
- Claims for direct discrimination
- harassment and unlawful wage deductions were found unsubstantiated and dismissed.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
1401371/2024 • 11 Mar 2026
split
The tribunal upheld the unfair dismissal claim and partially upheld race harassment allegations, but dismissed the disability, direct race discrimination and victimisation claims.
Legal Issues (7)
- Unfair dismissal
- race harassment (partial success)
- direct race discrimination (dismissed)
- perceived disability discrimination (dismissed)
- discrimination arising from perceived disability (withdrawn)
- victimisation (withdrawn)
- time‑limitation/just‑and‑equitable extension issues.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
8002722/2025 • 10 Mar 2026
struck_out
The claim was struck out because the claimant did not actively pursue it and failed to give an acceptable reason or attend the hearing.
Legal Issues (2)
- Failure to actively pursue the claim in accordance with rule 38(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- leading to a strike‑out of the claim.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
1403204/2024 • 9 Mar 2026
lost
The tribunal found the claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal and age discrimination to be not well‑founded and dismissed them.
Legal Issues (1)
- Unfair dismissal (including protected disclosures and assertion of statutory rights) and direct age discrimination.
GOV.UK SourceView Decision
6023269/2024 • 8 Mar 2026
lost
The Tribunal found the dismissal was fair because easyJet had a substantial reason – the serious criminal charge – and acted reasonably in treating it as sufficient to dismiss the pilot.
Legal Issues (3)
- Whether the dismissal fell within s 98(1)(b) ERA as a substantial reason (serious criminal allegation affecting reputation and trust)
- whether the employer acted reasonably in treating that as sufficient grounds
- and whether the procedural handling met the fairness test under s 98(4) and the ACAS Code.
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.