Browse recent Employment Tribunal decisions heard at London South.
£138,707.27 combined
Published decisions
Newest decisions first
Employer: Sky In-Home Service Ltd
The claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal succeeded on liability.
Reference: 6009728/2025
Employer: Whiskey & Wealth Club Ltd
The claim was struck out because the Employment Tribunal did not have territorial jurisdiction to hear it.
Reference: 6046739/2025
Employer: Southwark Council
The claimant's claim of constructive unfair dismissal failed and was dismissed.
Reference: 6009737/2025
The claimant was not an employee of Sixmen Limited at the material time, so her claims for redundancy pay and holiday pay were dismissed.
Reference: 6004854/2026
Employer: Native Land Ltd
The claimant won on liability (unfair dismissal and wages) by default after the respondent's response was struck out, but the remedy judgment and costs order were set aside on reconsideration, so the final remedy is not yet determined.
Reference: 6022779/2024
Employer: Topaz Ltd
The claimant lost on all claims except for unlawful deductions from wages and failure to provide a written statement, for which she was awarded a total of £1,268.94.
Reference: 2301649/2024
Employer: Kingston University Service Company Ltd
The claimant failed to establish that his tinnitus and anxiety had a substantial adverse effect on his day-to-day activities, so he was not a disabled person under the Equality Act 2010, and his amendment applications were either withdrawn or refused.
Reference: 6005329/2024
Employer: Mr N W Humphrey (Acting by his Deputy Ms S Morris)
The claim was struck out because it was no longer possible to have a fair hearing within the trial window.
Reference: 2303460/2022
Employer: Richmond Food & Supply Ltd and Others
The claimant succeeded against the employer on unpaid wages, holiday pay, notice pay and pension contributions, but the claims against the individual respondents were struck out as they were not the employer.
Reference: 6040979/2025
Employer: KPI Group Ltd
The respondent failed to attend the hearing and the claimant's claim was upheld.
Reference: 6027977/2025
Employer: Hurstmere School
All complaints were found not well-founded and were dismissed.
Reference: 2303124/2024
Employer: Harrods Ltd
The wrongful dismissal claim succeeded because four weeks of notice pay remained unpaid, while the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed because Harrods had a genuine belief in misconduct following a reasonable investigation and dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses.
Reference: 6005182/2025
Employer: The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
Both complaints were dismissed as not well-founded.
Reference: 2301022/2022
Employer: Kosy Living Ltd
The Respondent failed to present a valid response, resulting in a default judgment where the Tribunal upheld the Claimant's claims for unpaid wages, bonus, consequential losses, and notice pay.
Reference: 2300689/2026
Employer: The London Borough of Croydon
The respondent was ordered to pay compensation after the claimant's pregnancy and maternity discrimination claims were successful.
Reference: 2301815/2024
Employer: APX Estate Agents Ltd
The claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and maternity discrimination succeeded because the respondent failed to attend the hearing and provided no evidence to rebut the claimant's unchallenged account that she was dismissed without notice due to her pregnancy/maternity leave.
Reference: 6009619/2024
Employer: People’s Partnership Ltd and NASA Umbrella Ltd
The tribunal dismissed all claims because the claimant was not employed by the first respondent, remained employed by the second respondent, and received the contractual notice pay, so no breach of contract or wrongful dismissal occurred.
Reference: 6008020/2026
Employer: John Lewis plc
The claim was struck out because the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide any of the legal complaints.
Reference: 6004954/2025
Employer: Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust
The claim was dismissed because it was out of time, meaning the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear it.
Reference: 6003530/2025
Employer: Secom plc and others
The claimant succeeded on two specific detriment claims (cessation of verbal contact and a humiliating email) but all other claims including constructive unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, and wrongful dismissal were dismissed.
Reference: 2305255/2023
Employer: Paypacket Ltd and Mr A Isiko
The Claimant's claims succeeded against the Second Respondent because the evidence of payslips and the schedule of loss proved the unpaid wages and holiday pay, and the Second Respondent took no part in the proceedings.
Reference: 6003430/2026
Employer: Abbey DLD Colleges Ltd
The claims were validly settled under a settlement agreement, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear them and they were dismissed.
Reference: 6042321/2025
Employer: The Home Organisation Ltd
The claim of constructive unfair dismissal failed because the tribunal found no fundamental breach of contract by the employer and that the employment ended by mutual consent.
Reference: 6007371/2025
Employer: The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
The tribunal dismissed all disability-related claims because the claimant was not found to be disabled at the relevant times.
Reference: 2307364/2024
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.