Browse recent Employment Tribunal decisions heard at London South.
£138,707.27 combined
Published decisions
Newest decisions first
Employer: Maximus UK Services Ltd
All claims were dismissed by the Employment Tribunal.
Reference: 6007854/2024
Employer: SE Trains Ltd
The claimant resigned voluntarily and was not dismissed by the respondent; the resignation was a consensual decision to avoid a potential capability dismissal.
Reference: 6007709/2024
Employer: Bupa Care Services Ltd
The claimant's claims under Working Time Regulations were struck out for no reasonable prospects, and his religion/belief discrimination and Health and Safety claims were withdrawn, while other claims remain pending.
Reference: 2307277/2025
Employer: South Bank Colleges
The claimant succeeded in victimisation, constructive unfair dismissal, holiday pay, notice pay, and SSP claims, but failed in disability discrimination and harassment claims.
Reference: 2305628/2024
Employer: Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust
All three complaints were dismissed as not well-founded.
Reference: 2301943/2024
Employer: Kinoya Ltd
The claimant's complaints were dismissed because the employer had effectively provided payslips via a digital link (constructive giving) and the holiday pay was fully paid after termination, so no unlawful deduction remained.
Reference: 6002451/2026
Employer: Park Avenue Healthcare Ltd
The claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments succeeded, but all other claims (direct race and disability discrimination, harassment, holiday pay) were dismissed.
Reference: 2300820/2023
Employer: Splash Damage Ltd
The claims were struck out because the claimant's death made it impossible to have a fair hearing, as the respondent could not test the claimant's evidence on the central issue of disability.
Reference: 6006844/2025
Employer: New Life Balance Ltd
The claim was dismissed because the claimant failed to attend the final hearing and had not actively pursued the claim.
Reference: 6013877/2024
Employer: ISS Facility Services Ltd
The claim was struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success and the claimant failed to comply with an Unless Order.
Reference: 6000009/2026
Employer: King’s College London and L Sanderson
The entire claim was struck out as vexatious and an abuse of process under Rule 38(1)(a), because the claimant repeatedly re-litigated matters already decided or which could have been raised in earlier proceedings.
Reference: 2309321/2025
Employer: Comave UK Ltd
The claim was dismissed under Rule 47 because the claimant indicated the matter had been resolved by payment and neither party attended the hearing.
Reference: 6047276/2025
Employer: The Secretary of State for Justice
The claimant succeeded only on her harassment related to sex claim (a comment in February 2018), while all other claims were dismissed.
Reference: 2302738/2024
Employer: WPP 2005 Ltd
Claimant failed to establish that he was a disabled person under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, so all discrimination claims dependent on disability status were dismissed.
Reference: 6021899/2024
Employer: Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust
The claims of direct race discrimination and victimisation were not well-founded on the merits because the redundancy process was fair, the claimant was not treated less favourably because of her race, and the decision-makers were unaware of her protected act.
Reference: 6007366/2024
Employer: Mashtraxx Ltd (In Voluntary Liquidation)
The claimant won on claims for wages, breach of contract (notice and expenses), redundancy, and holiday pay but lost on a separate claim for compensation for lost share options.
Reference: 2303639/2025
Employer: Macmillan Cancer Support
The claimant's unfair dismissal claim was struck out for lack of service, and his claims of direct race discrimination, victimisation, and wrongful dismissal were dismissed on their merits.
Reference: 2303242/2024
Employer: Advanced New Technology Ltd
The claimant was not constructively dismissed because the employer's conduct did not amount to a fundamental breach of contract, and the claimant's resignation was not in response to any such breach.
Reference: 6003140/2025
Employer: Pret A Manger (Europe) Ltd
The claims were presented outside the applicable statutory time limits and no extension was granted, and the claimant lacked sufficient service for an unfair dismissal claim.
Reference: 2313872/2024
Employer: Ocado Central Services Ltd
The claimant won on unfair dismissal but lost on all other claims (notice pay, holiday pay, disability discrimination, harassment, victimisation).
Reference: 2305964/2024
Employer: The Pension Regulator
The claimant won on ordinary unfair dismissal due to unreasonable investigation and procedural flaws, but lost on automatic unfair dismissal because the alleged disclosures were not protected and were not the reason for dismissal.
Reference: 2301825/2024
Employer: Brighton And Hove City Council
The claimant's claims of automatically unfair dismissal and ordinary unfair dismissal were not well-founded and were dismissed.
Reference: 2303781/2024
Employer: Transport for London
The claimant was not an employee of the respondent, so the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction for the other claims.
Reference: 2301731/2025
Employer: Sky In-Home Service Ltd
The claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal succeeded on liability.
Reference: 6009728/2025
Search the full case database by keywords, case details, similar facts and compensation awarded.
Case details come from published tribunal decisions. Always check the official decision before relying on a result.