Executive Summary
CaseIntel analysed 130,984 published Employment Tribunal decisions from January 2014 to May 2026, creating one of the UK's largest structured datasets of tribunal outcomes. This report summarises the most significant patterns identified across compensation, claim success, industries, regions and employment claim types.
These findings describe historical published tribunal decisions. They should not be interpreted as predicting the outcome of any individual claim, which will always depend on its own facts, evidence and legal issues.
The ten headline findings
Read the full report below, or skip to the section that interests you using the contents panel.
Around 2 in 5 claimants succeed at tribunal
Employment Tribunal claims are more difficult to win than many people expect. Among the 83,159 cases with a known outcome, 39.9% were upheld or partially upheld, while 37.8% were dismissed outright. A further 20.8% were withdrawn before a final decision.
- Claimant success
- 39.9%
- Dismissed
- 37.8%
- Withdrawn
- 20.8%
- Cases analysed
- 83,159
The typical tribunal award is far lower than many people expect
Large Employment Tribunal awards attract headlines, but they are rare. Across 30,839 positive awards, the median award was £2,594, while the mean award was £7,098. More than two-thirds (67.4%) of awards were below £5,000, while only 0.4% exceeded £100,000.
- Median award
- £2,594
- Mean award
- £7,098
- Below £5,000
- 67.4%
- Above £100,000
- 0.4%
Unlawful deduction from wages is one of the strongest claim types
Claims relating to unpaid wages succeed substantially more often than most other common Employment Tribunal claims. With 24,719 cases, unlawful deduction from wages was the second most common claim type analysed and achieved a 74.2% claimant success rate. The median award was £1,637, reflecting that many successful claims concern relatively modest sums that are straightforward to prove.
- Cases
- 24,719
- Success rate
- 74.2%
- Median award
- £1,637
Whistleblowing rarely succeeds, but successful cases can produce exceptionally high awards
Whistleblowing combines one of the lowest success rates with the highest average compensation. Only 8.1% of whistleblowing claims succeeded. However, successful cases produced a mean award of £29,334 — the highest among the major claim types analysed — and the largest whistleblowing award reached £920,302.
- Cases
- 2,575
- Success rate
- 8.1%
- Median
- £6,436
- Mean
- £29,334
- Largest
- £920,302
Claimant success rates differ meaningfully across Great Britain
The data shows a noticeable difference between tribunal outcomes in Scotland and those in England & Wales. Claimants succeeded in 47.0% of Scottish cases with known outcomes compared with 39.4% in England & Wales. The dataset demonstrates a consistent geographical difference, although it does not explain the reasons behind it.
- Scotland
- 47.0%
- England & Wales
- 39.4%
- Difference
- +7.6 pp
Legal representation is associated with substantially higher awards
Represented claimants received considerably higher median awards than unrepresented claimants. The median award for represented claimants was £5,125, compared with £2,308 for claimants without representation. Aggregate success rates were almost identical (43.4% vs 43.2%) — but this headline is misleading: within comparable claim types, represented claimants consistently achieved higher success rates (see Section 6).
- Median (rep.)
- £5,125
- Median (unrep.)
- £2,308
- Success (rep.)
- 43.4%
- Success (unrep.)
- 43.2%
Government and public sector employers account for the largest number of tribunal claims
Government and public sector organisations generated more tribunal claims than any other industry in the dataset, accounting for 14,359 cases. Despite the high claim volume, claimants succeeded in only 12.5% of cases — demonstrating that a large number of claims does not necessarily correspond to a high claimant success rate.
- Cases
- 14,359
- Success
- 12.5%
- Median
- £5,513
Hospitality records the highest claimant success rate of any major industry
Hospitality produced the strongest claimant outcomes of all major industries analysed. Claimants succeeded in 65.7% of hospitality cases. Many of these claims involved wage deductions, holiday pay or National Minimum Wage disputes, although this report does not attempt to determine why the sector performs differently.
- Cases
- 5,727
- Success
- 65.7%
- Median
- £1,709
Polkey reductions frequently reduce compensation by half
Winning an unfair dismissal claim does not necessarily mean recovering the full value of compensation. Across 1,184 cases where a Polkey reduction was applied, the median reduction was 50%. This highlights the importance of remedy issues as well as liability when assessing potential tribunal outcomes.
- Cases analysed
- 1,184
- Median reduction
- 50%
Reinstatement remains exceptionally rare
Employment Tribunals almost never order employees to be reinstated. Only 160 of the 130,984 decisions analysed resulted in a reinstatement order — equivalent to 0.12% of all cases, or approximately 1 in every 819. Although reinstatement is available as a legal remedy, the data suggests that compensation remains the overwhelmingly more common outcome.
- Reinstatement orders
- 160
- Rate
- 0.12%
- Ratio
- 1 in 819
About This Research
Employment Tribunal statistics are often presented as high-level annual totals, providing relatively little insight into how different types of claims perform in practice. This report takes a different approach.
Rather than analysing tribunal activity at an aggregate level, CaseIntel examines individual published Employment Tribunal decisions to identify patterns across claim types, industries, tribunal regions, legal representation and compensation.
The objective is not to predict the outcome of any individual claim, but to provide the most comprehensive publicly available picture of historical Employment Tribunal decisions currently available.
At a glance
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Published tribunal decisions analysed | 130,984 |
| Coverage period | January 2014 – May 2026 |
| Jurisdictions | England & Wales + Scotland |
| Successfully structured via AI-assisted extraction | 130,916 |
| Median compensation award | £2,594 |
| Overall claimant success rate | 39.9% |
What this report covers
The report analyses Employment Tribunal decisions from multiple perspectives to understand how outcomes vary across different types of employment disputes. The following sections explore:
- Claim TypesWhich claims are most common, most successful and most valuable.
- Industry AnalysisHow tribunal outcomes differ between sectors of the economy.
- Regional AnalysisGeographical variations in claimant success and compensation.
- Representation & LitigationHow legal representation, tribunal remedies and procedural factors influence outcomes.
- MethodologyHow the dataset was created, validated and analysed.
How to read this report
The percentage of cases in which the claimant was successful, calculated using only cases where a clear tribunal outcome could be identified.
The middle compensation award after all successful awards are ranked from lowest to highest. Median is used throughout because it better reflects a typical outcome than the mean, which can be distorted by a small number of exceptionally large awards.
The arithmetic average compensation award. Means remain useful for understanding the overall distribution and identifying the influence of unusually large tribunal awards.
Claim Type Analysis
Not all Employment Tribunal claims are alike. Some claim types succeed frequently but typically result in relatively modest compensation. Others are difficult to win but can produce substantial awards when successful.
Understanding these differences is one of the most valuable insights available from Employment Tribunal data. Rather than relying on overall averages, this section examines how claim outcomes vary across the UK's most common employment claim types.
Major claim types at a glance
This table provides an overview of every major claim type identified in the dataset, allowing readers to compare claim frequency, claimant success and compensation side by side. Claim types with fewer than 50 cases are excluded from this summary.
| Claim Type | Cases | % Set | Success | Median | Mean | Largest |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair Dismissal | 32,609 | 24.9% | 25.3% | £6,971 | £14,829 | £3,449,329 |
| Unlawful Deduction from Wages | 24,719 | 18.9% | 74.2% | £1,637 | £4,013 | £423,868 |
| Disability Discrimination | 10,001 | 7.6% | 16.0% | £10,103 | £17,425 | £295,491 |
| Breach of Contract | 7,647 | 5.8% | 62.6% | £3,103 | £6,028 | £357,004 |
| Equal Pay | 5,374 | 4.1% | 3.2% | £11,964 | £14,683 | £39,761 |
| Race Discrimination | 3,674 | 2.8% | 10.2% | £7,000 | £12,362 | £93,376 |
| Redundancy | 2,897 | 2.2% | 72.1% | £5,724 | £8,718 | £240,407 |
| Whistleblowing / PIDA | 2,575 | 2.0% | 8.1% | £6,436 | £29,334 | £920,302 |
| Redundancy Pay | 2,121 | 1.6% | 86.8% | £4,556 | £6,647 | £160,123 |
| Sex Discrimination | 1,825 | 1.4% | 20.0% | £10,448 | £22,629 | £1,009,832 |
| Collective Consultation | 1,807 | 1.4% | 91.8% | £6,250 | £12,284 | £399,569 |
| Constructive Dismissal | 1,746 | 1.3% | 38.9% | £9,978 | £16,041 | £168,082 |
| Age Discrimination | 1,570 | 1.2% | 8.2% | £5,000 | £15,334 | £210,212 |
| Holiday Pay | 1,154 | 0.9% | 78.3% | £788 | £1,238 | £35,600 |
| Maternity / Pregnancy | 1,122 | 0.9% | 37.8% | £10,579 | £14,051 | £106,000 |
| Working Time | 784 | 0.6% | 30.0% | £1,000 | £1,331 | £10,451 |
| Religion or Belief Discrimination | 273 | 0.2% | 12.4% | £4,000 | £5,767 | £26,480 |
| Wrongful Dismissal | 271 | 0.2% | 63.6% | £1,841 | £4,285 | £36,599 |
| Trade Union Rights | 244 | 0.2% | 16.1% | £2,000 | £6,078 | £68,964 |
| Sexual Orientation Discrimination | 163 | 0.1% | 18.0% | £5,016 | £9,513 | £48,110 |
| Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments | 142 | 0.1% | 51.4% | £6,322 | £9,285 | £36,980 |
| Victimisation | 118 | 0.1% | 44.9% | £7,840 | £10,057 | £26,477 |
| TUPE | 115 | 0.1% | 36.7% | £7,020 | £16,178 | £136,022 |
| Flexible Working | 106 | 0.1% | 24.4% | £2,029 | £2,171 | £4,352 |
| National Minimum Wage | 94 | 0.1% | 32.8% | £1,608 | £46,445 | £733,902 |
Key findings
Unfair dismissal dominates — but remains difficult to win
Unfair dismissal is by far the most common Employment Tribunal claim, accounting for 32,609 cases (24.9%). Despite its prevalence, claimant success is relatively low at 25.3%. Successful claims produced a median award of £6,971; the largest unfair dismissal award identified was £3,449,329.
Unlawful deduction from wages combines high success with straightforward awards
Across 24,719 published decisions, claimants succeeded in 74.2% of cases. Typical awards remain comparatively modest at £1,637, reflecting that many cases concern unpaid wages or contractual entitlements rather than broader compensation for loss.
Equal Pay claims are exceptionally hard to win — but highly valuable when successful
Equal Pay recorded the lowest claimant success rate among major claim types at just 3.2%, but successful claims produced the highest median compensation of any category (£11,964). Success rate and financial value do not necessarily move together.
Whistleblowing claims remain high-risk but potentially high-value
Only 8.1% of whistleblowing claims succeeded. However, successful claims produced a mean award of £29,334 — the highest among major claim types — while the largest individual whistleblowing award reached £920,302.
Collective Consultation claims record the highest claimant success rate
Across 1,807 published decisions, claimants succeeded in 91.8% of cases — the highest claimant success rate of any major claim type.
Rankings
| # | Claim Type | Cases | % of Dataset |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Unfair Dismissal | 32,609 | 24.9% |
| 2 | Unlawful Deduction from Wages | 24,719 | 18.9% |
| 3 | Disability Discrimination | 10,001 | 7.6% |
| 4 | Breach of Contract | 7,647 | 5.8% |
| 5 | Equal Pay | 5,374 | 4.1% |
| 6 | Race Discrimination | 3,674 | 2.8% |
| 7 | Redundancy | 2,897 | 2.2% |
| 8 | Whistleblowing / PIDA | 2,575 | 2.0% |
| 9 | Redundancy Pay | 2,121 | 1.6% |
| 10 | Sex Discrimination | 1,825 | 1.4% |
| # | Claim Type | Cases | Success | Median |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Collective Consultation | 1,807 | 91.8% | £6,250 |
| 2 | Redundancy Pay | 2,121 | 86.8% | £4,556 |
| 3 | Holiday Pay | 1,154 | 78.3% | £788 |
| 4 | Unlawful Deduction from Wages | 24,719 | 74.2% | £1,637 |
| 5 | Redundancy | 2,897 | 72.1% | £5,724 |
| 6 | Wrongful Dismissal | 271 | 63.6% | £1,841 |
| 7 | Breach of Contract | 7,647 | 62.6% | £3,103 |
| 8 | Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments | 142 | 51.4% | £6,322 |
| 9 | Victimisation | 118 | 44.9% | £7,840 |
| 10 | Constructive Dismissal | 1,746 | 38.9% | £9,978 |
| # | Claim Type | Median | Mean | Cases |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Equal Pay | £11,964 | £14,683 | 5,374 |
| 2 | Maternity / Pregnancy | £10,579 | £14,051 | 1,122 |
| 3 | Sex Discrimination | £10,448 | £22,629 | 1,825 |
| 4 | Disability Discrimination | £10,103 | £17,425 | 10,001 |
| 5 | Constructive Dismissal | £9,978 | £16,041 | 1,746 |
| 6 | Victimisation | £7,840 | £10,057 | 118 |
| 7 | TUPE | £7,020 | £16,178 | 115 |
| 8 | Race Discrimination | £7,000 | £12,362 | 3,674 |
| 9 | Unfair Dismissal | £6,971 | £14,829 | 32,609 |
| 10 | Whistleblowing / PIDA | £6,436 | £29,334 | 2,575 |
| # | Claim Type | Mean | Median | Cases |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | National Minimum Wage | £46,445 | £1,608 | 94 |
| 2 | Whistleblowing / PIDA | £29,334 | £6,436 | 2,575 |
| 3 | Sex Discrimination | £22,629 | £10,448 | 1,825 |
| 4 | Disability Discrimination | £17,425 | £10,103 | 10,001 |
| 5 | TUPE | £16,178 | £7,020 | 115 |
| 6 | Constructive Dismissal | £16,041 | £9,978 | 1,746 |
| 7 | Age Discrimination | £15,334 | £5,000 | 1,570 |
| 8 | Unfair Dismissal | £14,829 | £6,971 | 32,609 |
| 9 | Equal Pay | £14,683 | £11,964 | 5,374 |
| 10 | Maternity / Pregnancy | £14,051 | £10,579 | 1,122 |
Claim type matrix
One of the clearest patterns in the data is that claimant success and compensation are only weakly related. Some claims succeed frequently but involve relatively modest awards. Others succeed rarely but can produce substantial compensation when they do. The chart below illustrates this relationship.
Claim type — success rate vs typical award
Each bubble is one claim type. Bubble size is proportional to the number of published decisions analysed. The chart shows that success and award size are only weakly related — some of the hardest claims to win produce the largest awards when they succeed.
SourceCaseIntel analysis of 130,984 published UK Employment Tribunal decisions, January 2014 – May 2026.
Headline averages are also misleading on their own. In several claim types, the mean award is several times larger than the median, driven by a handful of outsized awards. The chart below shows where this skew is largest.
When the average misleads — median vs mean award by claim type
The mean (average) award sits well above the median in most claim types because a small number of very large awards pull the average up. The wider the gap, the more skewed the distribution.
SourceCaseIntel analysis of 130,984 published UK Employment Tribunal decisions, January 2014 – May 2026.
Why this matters. Headline tribunal statistics provide valuable context, but they can also mask substantial differences between different types of employment disputes. Comparing an Equal Pay claim with a Holiday Pay claim — or a Whistleblowing claim with an Unlawful Deduction from Wages claim — is unlikely to provide meaningful insight. CaseIntel's benchmarking tools therefore compare claims against genuinely similar historical tribunal decisions, taking account of claim type alongside other relevant characteristics.
For plain-English background on the most common claim types, see our guides to unfair dismissal, whistleblowing and workplace discrimination.
Industry Analysis
Employment Tribunal claims are not distributed evenly across the UK economy. Some industries generate significantly more tribunal claims than others, while claimant success rates and compensation vary considerably between sectors.
This section analyses Employment Tribunal outcomes across the UK's major industries using three key measures: claim volume, claimant success rate, and typical compensation (median award). Unless otherwise stated, the analysis refers to historical published Employment Tribunal decisions.
| Industry | Cases | % Set | Success | Median | Mean | Largest |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other* | 38,559 | 29.4% | 61.8% | £2,790 | £6,995 | £1,009,832 |
| Government/Public Sector | 14,359 | 11.0% | 12.5% | £5,513 | £13,825 | £415,227 |
| Healthcare | 11,942 | 9.1% | 30.1% | £2,663 | £9,372 | £1,000,000 |
| Retail | 5,962 | 4.6% | 29.9% | £3,265 | £7,850 | £217,440 |
| Transport | 5,942 | 4.5% | 33.5% | £2,500 | £6,664 | £358,000 |
| Hospitality | 5,727 | 4.4% | 65.7% | £1,709 | £3,983 | £185,042 |
| Education | 4,427 | 3.4% | 25.7% | £3,422 | £13,873 | £3,449,329 |
| Construction | 2,184 | 1.7% | 56.1% | £3,176 | £7,843 | £178,200 |
| Financial Services | 1,505 | 1.1% | 22.2% | £7,222 | £21,536 | £487,777 |
| Charity/Non-Profit | 1,257 | 1.0% | 26.2% | £5,000 | £8,691 | £96,929 |
| Technology | 728 | 0.6% | 52.5% | £6,812 | £15,727 | £399,279 |
| Legal | 697 | 0.5% | 45.1% | £4,128 | £7,349 | £84,000 |
| Manufacturing | 609 | 0.5% | 52.5% | £6,622 | £12,079 | £174,645 |
| Professional Services | 298 | 0.2% | 32.7% | £3,976 | £9,055 | £63,469 |
| Telecommunications | 278 | 0.2% | 26.3% | £3,411 | £12,313 | £59,870 |
| Media | 202 | 0.2% | 39.0% | £5,884 | £16,751 | £399,569 |
| Travel | 91 | 0.1% | 96.2% | N/A | N/A | £89,382 |
| Energy/Utilities | 81 | 0.1% | 46.4% | £6,444 | £10,384 | £41,868 |
| Security | 62 | 0.0% | 49.1% | £3,000 | £4,071 | £15,345 |
Key findings
Government & Public Sector generates the highest volume — but the lowest success rate
Government & Public Sector employers account for more published Employment Tribunal decisions than any other named industry. Across 14,359 decisions, claimants succeeded in only 12.5% of known-outcome cases — the lowest of any major industry. Despite this, successful cases still produced a median award of £5,513.
Hospitality records the highest claimant success rate among major industries
Across 5,727 published tribunal decisions, claimants succeeded in 65.7% of known-outcome cases. Typical awards were comparatively modest (£1,709), suggesting that many successful Hospitality claims involve relatively straightforward disputes such as unpaid wages or holiday pay.
Financial Services produces the highest compensation awards
Although claimant success was relatively low (22.2%), successful claims produced the highest median award (£7,222) and the highest mean award (£21,536) of any named industry. Industries with lower claimant success rates can still generate the largest financial awards.
Healthcare combines high claim volumes with exceptionally large awards
Healthcare is the second-largest named industry (11,942 decisions). Claimant success sits close to the overall average (30.1%), but Healthcare contains multiple seven-figure awards, including awards of £1,000,000 and £920,302.
Education contains the single largest award in the dataset
Education recorded the largest individual award in the entire dataset at £3,449,329. Although the median award was £3,422, the mean award increased to £13,873, reflecting the influence of a relatively small number of exceptionally high-value claims.
Rankings
| # | Industry | Cases | % of Dataset |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Government/Public Sector | 14,359 | 11.0% |
| 2 | Healthcare | 11,942 | 9.1% |
| 3 | Retail | 5,962 | 4.6% |
| 4 | Transport | 5,942 | 4.5% |
| 5 | Hospitality | 5,727 | 4.4% |
| 6 | Education | 4,427 | 3.4% |
| 7 | Construction | 2,184 | 1.7% |
| 8 | Financial Services | 1,505 | 1.1% |
| 9 | Charity/Non-Profit | 1,257 | 1.0% |
| 10 | Technology | 728 | 0.6% |
| # | Industry | Cases | Success | Median |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Hospitality | 5,727 | 65.7% | £1,709 |
| 2 | Construction | 2,184 | 56.1% | £3,176 |
| 3 | Technology | 728 | 52.5% | £6,812 |
| 4 | Manufacturing | 609 | 52.5% | £6,622 |
| 5 | Legal | 697 | 45.1% | £4,128 |
| 6 | Media | 202 | 39.0% | £5,884 |
| 7 | Transport | 5,942 | 33.5% | £2,500 |
| 8 | Professional Services | 298 | 32.7% | £3,976 |
| 9 | Healthcare | 11,942 | 30.1% | £2,663 |
| 10 | Retail | 5,962 | 29.9% | £3,265 |
| # | Industry | Median | Mean | Cases |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Financial Services | £7,222 | £21,536 | 1,505 |
| 2 | Technology | £6,812 | £15,727 | 728 |
| 3 | Manufacturing | £6,622 | £12,079 | 609 |
| 4 | Energy/Utilities | £6,444 | £10,384 | 81 |
| 5 | Media | £5,884 | £16,751 | 202 |
| 6 | Government/Public Sector | £5,513 | £13,825 | 14,359 |
| 7 | Charity/Non-Profit | £5,000 | £8,691 | 1,257 |
| 8 | Legal | £4,128 | £7,349 | 697 |
| 9 | Professional Services | £3,976 | £9,055 | 298 |
| 10 | Education | £3,422 | £13,873 | 4,427 |
| # | Industry | Mean | Median | Cases |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Financial Services | £21,536 | £7,222 | 1,505 |
| 2 | Media | £16,751 | £5,884 | 202 |
| 3 | Technology | £15,727 | £6,812 | 728 |
| 4 | Education | £13,873 | £3,422 | 4,427 |
| 5 | Government/Public Sector | £13,825 | £5,513 | 14,359 |
| 6 | Telecommunications | £12,313 | £3,411 | 278 |
| 7 | Manufacturing | £12,079 | £6,622 | 609 |
| 8 | Energy/Utilities | £10,384 | £6,444 | 81 |
| 9 | Healthcare | £9,372 | £2,663 | 11,942 |
| 10 | Professional Services | £9,055 | £3,976 | 298 |
Industry matrix
Employment Tribunal outcomes are influenced by both the likelihood of success and the level of compensation. The interactive chart below demonstrates how industries differ across both dimensions simultaneously.
Industry — success rate vs typical award
Each bubble is one industry. Bubble size is proportional to the number of published decisions analysed. Named industries with 50+ cases; the unidentified 'Other' bucket is excluded.
SourceCaseIntel analysis of 130,984 published UK Employment Tribunal decisions, January 2014 – May 2026.
Average (mean) industry awards can be skewed by a small number of exceptionally large cases — particularly in Education, Government & Public Sector and Healthcare. The dumbbell chart below shows how far the mean sits above the typical (median) award in each major industry.
When the average misleads — median vs mean award by industry
The mean (average) award sits well above the median in most industries because a small number of very large awards pull the average up. The wider the gap, the more skewed the distribution.
SourceCaseIntel analysis of 130,984 published UK Employment Tribunal decisions, January 2014 – May 2026.
Why industry matters. Employment disputes arise in very different workplace environments. A discrimination claim against a large financial institution is unlikely to resemble an unpaid wages dispute involving a hospitality employer. For this reason, CaseIntel benchmarks claims against genuinely comparable Employment Tribunal decisions wherever possible, taking account of industry as well as claim type, compensation patterns and other relevant characteristics.
To explore how settlement offers compare to historical tribunal awards within similar industries, try the Settlement Offer Checker.
Regional Analysis
Employment Tribunal outcomes vary across Great Britain. While national statistics provide useful context, tribunal activity, claimant success rates and compensation differ between tribunal regions.
This section analyses tribunal outcomes across the UK's major tribunal regions using three key measures: tribunal claim volume, claimant success rate, and typical compensation (median award).
| Tribunal Region | Cases | % Set | Success | Median | Mean | Largest |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scotland | 11,112 | 8.5% | 53.6% | £2,747 | £6,418 | £415,227 |
| London South | 5,485 | 4.2% | 41.2% | £3,261 | £10,866 | £1,009,832 |
| London Central | 4,471 | 3.4% | 45.0% | £3,567 | £12,064 | £733,902 |
| London East | 4,138 | 3.2% | 46.6% | £3,000 | £7,890 | £265,033 |
| Manchester | 4,114 | 3.1% | 42.7% | £2,640 | £7,377 | £291,930 |
| Birmingham | 3,377 | 2.6% | 43.9% | £3,426 | £7,669 | £147,573 |
| Leeds | 2,782 | 2.1% | 45.1% | £2,439 | £7,503 | £295,491 |
| Watford | 2,426 | 1.9% | 38.6% | £3,413 | £9,281 | £153,261 |
| Newcastle / North East | 2,215 | 1.7% | 50.5% | £2,549 | £6,276 | £135,432 |
| East of England | 2,044 | 1.6% | 42.2% | £3,187 | £9,024 | £197,119 |
| Nottingham | 1,666 | 1.3% | 55.2% | £2,677 | £6,608 | £111,108 |
| Bristol | 1,582 | 1.2% | 41.8% | £3,484 | £9,346 | £160,123 |
| Liverpool | 1,412 | 1.1% | 38.3% | £2,510 | £6,154 | £97,961 |
| Cardiff | 1,230 | 0.9% | 43.2% | £3,227 | £7,568 | £65,635 |
| Southampton | 983 | 0.8% | 45.7% | £3,981 | £21,480 | £3,449,329 |
| Reading | 946 | 0.7% | 44.0% | £4,275 | £14,908 | £340,213 |
| Sheffield | 639 | 0.5% | 53.7% | £2,631 | £8,736 | £254,243 |
| Exeter | 545 | 0.4% | 47.9% | £2,722 | £7,451 | £117,632 |
| Leicester | 471 | 0.4% | 42.2% | £2,676 | £6,143 | £39,758 |
| Hull | 340 | 0.3% | 50.7% | £2,921 | £6,098 | £43,487 |
| Wales (Mold) | 282 | 0.2% | 45.6% | £3,000 | £10,641 | £237,891 |
| Ashford | 222 | 0.2% | 51.4% | £2,944 | £5,851 | £34,962 |
Key findings
Scotland is the largest tribunal region and records above-average success
Scotland is the largest identifiable tribunal region within the dataset. Across 11,112 published tribunal decisions, claimants succeeded in 53.6% of known-outcome cases — considerably above the national average. At country level, Scotland also outperformed England & Wales (47.0% vs 39.4%).
Nottingham records the highest claimant success rate of any region
Among tribunal regions meeting the publication threshold, Nottingham produced the strongest claimant outcomes. Across 1,666 published decisions, claimants succeeded in 55.2% of known-outcome cases.
Reading and Southampton record the highest compensation
Reading recorded the highest median award (£4,275). Southampton produced the highest mean award (£21,480), driven by several exceptionally large awards including the largest in the entire dataset (£3,449,329).
London accounts for the largest concentration of tribunal claims
The three London regions together account for 14,094 published decisions, representing 26.2% of all cases where tribunal location could be identified. London also features prominently in highest compensation regions, with London Central and London South both recording median awards above £3,250.
Liverpool records the lowest claimant success rate
At the opposite end of the rankings, Liverpool produced the lowest claimant success rate among major tribunal regions. Across 1,412 published decisions, claimants succeeded in 38.3% of known-outcome cases (median award £2,510).
Rankings
| # | Tribunal Region | Cases | % of Dataset |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Scotland | 11,112 | 8.5% |
| 2 | London South | 5,485 | 4.2% |
| 3 | London Central | 4,471 | 3.4% |
| 4 | London East | 4,138 | 3.2% |
| 5 | Manchester | 4,114 | 3.1% |
| 6 | Birmingham | 3,377 | 2.6% |
| 7 | Leeds | 2,782 | 2.1% |
| 8 | Watford | 2,426 | 1.9% |
| 9 | Newcastle / North East | 2,215 | 1.7% |
| 10 | East of England | 2,044 | 1.6% |
| # | Tribunal Region | Cases | Success | Median |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Nottingham | 1,666 | 55.2% | £2,677 |
| 2 | Sheffield | 639 | 53.7% | £2,631 |
| 3 | Scotland | 11,112 | 53.6% | £2,747 |
| 4 | Ashford | 222 | 51.4% | £2,944 |
| 5 | Hull | 340 | 50.7% | £2,921 |
| 6 | Newcastle / North East | 2,215 | 50.5% | £2,549 |
| 7 | Exeter | 545 | 47.9% | £2,722 |
| 8 | London East | 4,138 | 46.6% | £3,000 |
| 9 | Southampton | 983 | 45.7% | £3,981 |
| 10 | Wales (Mold) | 282 | 45.6% | £3,000 |
| # | Tribunal Region | Median | Mean | Cases |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Reading | £4,275 | £14,908 | 946 |
| 2 | Southampton | £3,981 | £21,480 | 983 |
| 3 | London Central | £3,567 | £12,064 | 4,471 |
| 4 | Bristol | £3,484 | £9,346 | 1,582 |
| 5 | Birmingham | £3,426 | £7,669 | 3,377 |
| 6 | Watford | £3,413 | £9,281 | 2,426 |
| 7 | London South | £3,261 | £10,866 | 5,485 |
| Country | Cases | Success rate |
|---|---|---|
| Scotland | 11,112 | 47.0% |
| England & Wales | ~ remaining set | 39.4% |
Regional matrix
Differences between regions are real but modest
Across 22 tribunal regions with 200 or more published decisions, claimant success rates range from 38.3% (Liverpool) to 55.2% (Nottingham) — a spread of roughly 17 percentage points. Higher success rates cluster in Scotland, the North East and the East Midlands, while the lowest rates appear in Liverpool, Watford and London South.
Claimant Success Rate by Tribunal Region
Schematic tile map of Great Britain. Each tribunal region is positioned approximately by geography and shaded by claimant success rate (deeper colour = higher success). Hover or focus a region for full detail.
SourceCaseIntel analysis of 130,984 published UK Employment Tribunal decisions, January 2014 – May 2026.
How regions rank head-to-head
The ranked bar chart below sorts each tribunal region from highest to lowest claimant success rate. The amber line marks the overall claimant success rate across the dataset for reference.
Tribunal Regions Ranked by Claimant Success Rate
Horizontal bar chart, sorted from highest to lowest claimant success rate. Bars are shaded using the same scale as Figure 5.1. Hover or focus a bar for cases analysed and median compensation.
SourceCaseIntel analysis of 130,984 published UK Employment Tribunal decisions, January 2014 – May 2026.
Why regional context matters. Employment Tribunal claims are shaped by many factors, including the characteristics of local employers, workforce composition and the types of disputes reaching individual tribunal regions. While national statistics provide valuable context, comparing claims against similar regional decisions can often produce more meaningful benchmarks. CaseIntel therefore incorporates regional context wherever reliable tribunal location data is available.
Representation & Litigation Characteristics
One of the most common questions asked by Employment Tribunal claimants is whether legal representation makes a meaningful difference. The CaseIntel dataset suggests the answer is more nuanced than many people assume.
At first glance, represented and unrepresented claimants appear to achieve almost identical overall success rates. However, a deeper analysis reveals that this headline figure masks an important statistical pattern: represented claimants are far more likely to pursue complex claim types — such as discrimination and whistleblowing — where success rates are inherently lower. When similar claim types are compared directly, represented claimants consistently achieve higher success rates and substantially larger compensation awards.
Representation information was available for 64,143 tribunal decisions (49.0% of the dataset). Representative type (for example solicitor, barrister or trade union representative) could be identified in 54,223 decisions (41.4%).
| Representation | Cases | Success | Median | Mean | Largest |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Represented | 24,899 | 43.4% | £5,125 | £13,539 | £1,009,832 |
| Unrepresented | 39,244 | 43.2% | £2,308 | £6,265 | £3,449,329 |
Key findings
Representation is associated with substantially higher compensation
Across the analysed decisions, represented claimants received considerably larger tribunal awards than claimants who represented themselves. The median award for represented claimants was £5,125, compared with £2,308 for unrepresented claimants — a typical award more than twice as large.
Overall success rates tell an incomplete story (Simpson's paradox)
At first glance, represented and unrepresented claimants appear almost equally likely to succeed (43.4% vs 43.2%). However, represented claimants are much more likely to bring legally complex claims — such as discrimination and whistleblowing — which have substantially lower baseline success rates. When individual claim types are compared directly, represented claimants consistently outperform unrepresented claimants.
Representation improves outcomes across every major claim type
The pattern becomes much clearer when similar claims are compared with one another. Across every major claim type analysed, represented claimants achieved higher claimant success rates than those representing themselves.
| Claim Type | Rep. Rate | Success (Rep.) | Success (Unrep.) | Median (Rep.) | Median (Unrep.) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair Dismissal | 45.1% | 41.6% | 26.3% | £8,910 | £5,487 |
| Discrimination | 46.4% | 26.3% | 15.2% | £11,642 | £7,128 |
| Whistleblowing | 40.7% | 17.6% | 7.4% | £11,634 | £5,000 |
| Wage Claims | 19.8% | 72.1% | 70.6% | £2,084 | £1,470 |
| Constructive Dismissal | 46.8% | 47.9% | 31.0% | £10,075 | £9,354 |
Barrister-represented claimants receive the largest awards
Representative type also appears to influence compensation outcomes. The median award for barrister-represented claimants was approximately 3.7 times larger than for litigants representing themselves.
| Representative Type | Cases | Success | Median | Mean |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Self (litigant in person) | 33,955 | 42.7% | £2,480 | £6,789 |
| Barrister | 8,916 | 46.3% | £9,249 | £21,505 |
| Solicitor | 6,126 | 43.6% | £6,244 | £12,939 |
| Industry | Rep. Rate | Success Rate | Median Award |
|---|---|---|---|
| Government/Public Sector | 56.2% | 12.5% | £5,513 |
| Financial Services | 48.0% | 22.2% | £7,222 |
| Education | 47.7% | 25.7% | £3,422 |
| Transport | 43.0% | 33.5% | £2,500 |
| Construction | 40.4% | 56.1% | £3,176 |
| Retail | 39.2% | 29.9% | £3,265 |
| Healthcare | 38.3% | 30.1% | £2,663 |
| Hospitality | 28.6% | 65.7% | £1,709 |
Tribunal remedies
Reinstatement remains exceptionally rare. Employment Tribunals have the power to order an employee to be reinstated. In practice, this almost never occurs. Across 130,984 tribunal decisions, only 160 reinstatement orders were identified — 0.12% of all published decisions, approximately one in every 819. Most reinstatement orders related to unfair dismissal claims.
| Claim Type | Reinstatement Orders |
|---|---|
| Unfair Dismissal | 114 |
| Whistleblowing / PIDA | 10 |
| Disability Discrimination | 9 |
| Constructive Dismissal | 8 |
| Unlawful Deduction from Wages | 5 |
| Maternity / Pregnancy | 5 |
| Race Discrimination | 4 |
Polkey reductions frequently reduce compensation
Winning an unfair dismissal claim does not necessarily result in receiving full compensation. The dataset identified 1,184 cases involving a recorded Polkey reduction, with a median reduction of 50% and a mean reduction of 57%. Notably, 240 cases (20.3%) involved a 100% Polkey reduction, meaning the tribunal concluded the claimant would have been dismissed even if a fair procedure had been followed.
The histogram below plots the 1,184 cases with a recorded Polkey reduction across the full 0–100% scale. The amber line marks the median reduction of 50% — the benchmark outcome a typical claimant should anticipate. Reductions are reported in the quartile bands used by the underlying dataset; finer 10% granularity is not published.
Distribution of Polkey Reductions
Number of tribunal decisions by Polkey reduction band, plotted on a 0–100% scale. The 100% band is shown as a spike.
SourceCaseIntel analysis of 130,984 published UK Employment Tribunal decisions, January 2014 – May 2026.
| Reduction Band | Cases |
|---|---|
| 0 – 25% | 159 |
| 25 – 50% | 231 |
| 50 – 75% | 359 |
| 75 – <100% | 195 |
| 100% | 240 |
Costs orders remain uncommon
Unlike most civil litigation, costs orders remain relatively rare within Employment Tribunals. Only 1,564 costs orders were identified across the entire dataset. The typical costs order remained modest at a median of £1,000, although the largest costs order reached £170,000.
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Costs orders | 1,564 |
| 25th percentile | £330 |
| Median | £1,000 |
| 75th percentile | £2,850 |
| Mean | £3,230 |
| Largest costs order | £170,000 |
Why this matters. The decision to obtain legal representation depends on many factors, including the complexity of the claim, the financial value of the dispute and the claimant's personal circumstances. The historical data does not prove that legal representation causes better outcomes. However, it does demonstrate that, when similar claim types are compared, represented claimants have consistently achieved higher success rates and larger compensation awards. This illustrates why broad national averages can be misleading and why detailed benchmarking against comparable historical cases provides far more meaningful insight.
Methodology
The findings presented throughout this report are based on one of the largest structured analyses of published UK Employment Tribunal decisions undertaken to date.
CaseIntel analysed 130,984 published Employment Tribunal decisions spanning January 2014 to May 2026. Unlike traditional Employment Tribunal statistics, which often report only high-level annual figures, this research examines individual tribunal judgments at scale, allowing much richer analysis of historical tribunal outcomes.
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Published tribunal decisions analysed | 130,984 |
| Date range | January 2014 – May 2026 |
| Employment Tribunal jurisdictions | England & Wales and Scotland |
| Decisions with successful AI extraction | 130,916 (99.9%) |
| Benchmark-eligible decisions | 54,065 |
Data collection
The dataset was compiled from publicly available Employment Tribunal judgments published by HM Courts & Tribunals Service. CaseIntel downloaded every available published Employment Tribunal decision within the study period and processed each judgment through a structured extraction pipeline. No sampling techniques were used.
Only publicly available judgments were included. Cases that settled before judgment, were withdrawn before publication, or were otherwise unpublished are not represented within this report.
Data processing
Employment Tribunal judgments are published in a wide variety of formats and writing styles. To enable large-scale analysis, each judgment was processed through an AI-assisted extraction pipeline that converted unstructured legal documents into structured research data. The extraction process identified key information including:
- Claim type(s)
- Tribunal outcome
- Compensation awarded
- Employer industry
- Tribunal region and country
- Legal representation
- Remedies granted and costs orders
- Polkey reductions
- Hearing dates and procedural information
Automated quality assurance and validation checks were applied throughout the extraction process to identify inconsistencies and improve data accuracy before analysis.
Data coverage
Not every Employment Tribunal judgment contains every variable analysed within this report. Some judgments record compensation but not representation. Others identify the tribunal country but not the specific hearing centre. As a result, different sections of this report are based on different sample sizes depending on the information available. Where this occurs, the relevant sample size is clearly stated within each section.
| Variable | Coverage | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Country | 100.0% | Most complete field; basis for the most reliable geographic comparison |
| Outcome (raw value) | 99.9% | 36.5% resolve to "Unknown" after normalisation |
| Employer name | 99.4% | — |
| Decision date | 82.3% | — |
| Primary claim type | 79.2% | — |
| Industry | 72.7% | Inferred from employer name; 29% fall in "Other" |
| Claimant representation | 49.0% | Partial coverage |
| Tribunal region | 41.1% | Major limitation for regional analysis |
| Compensation award | 23.6% | Present only where a remedy was determined and stated |
The report focuses primarily on median compensation rather than average (mean) compensation. Employment Tribunal awards are highly skewed: a relatively small number of exceptionally large awards can substantially increase the average, making it less representative of the outcome experienced by most claimants. Median awards therefore provide a better indication of a typical tribunal outcome. Average awards are also reported because they remain useful for understanding the overall distribution of compensation.
Where public rankings are presented, minimum sample thresholds are applied to avoid drawing conclusions from very small numbers of cases: 30 known outcomes for success rates, 10 positive awards for compensation, 50 cases per industry, and 200 cases per tribunal region.
CaseIntel has taken extensive steps to improve the reliability of the dataset, including:
- automated validation during data extraction;
- consistency checks across extracted variables;
- duplicate detection and removal using deterministic hash-based identifiers;
- standardisation of claim types and outcomes;
- normalisation of compensation figures;
- manual spot checks against original tribunal judgments.
Despite these safeguards, no large-scale dataset is entirely free from error. The findings should be interpreted as robust estimates based on published Employment Tribunal decisions rather than perfect measures of every tribunal outcome.
Limitations
Published decisions only
Employment Tribunals do not publish every case. Many disputes settle before judgment, are withdrawn, or are otherwise unpublished. This report analyses published tribunal decisions rather than every claim brought during the study period.
Variable coverage differs
Some variables are available more consistently than others. Country information is available for almost the entire dataset, whereas tribunal region and legal representation are recorded less frequently.
Outcome unknown for 36.5% of cases
After normalisation, a substantial share of records have an 'Unknown' outcome — predominantly preliminary hearings, case management orders and procedural decisions. All success-rate figures are calculated only on cases with a known outcome.
Historical analysis
The report analyses historical tribunal decisions. Changes in legislation, judicial practice or labour market conditions may influence future outcomes. Historical patterns should therefore be viewed as context rather than predictions.
Association is not causation
The relationships described throughout this report identify statistical associations. They should not be interpreted as proving that one factor directly causes another.
Reproducibility
The research methodology has been designed so that future editions of this report can be produced using the same extraction and validation process. As additional judgments are published, the dataset can be expanded and refreshed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does this report include every Employment Tribunal case?
No. The research analyses published Employment Tribunal decisions. Many disputes settle before a judgment is published or are otherwise not publicly available. The report therefore reflects published decisions rather than every Employment Tribunal claim brought in Great Britain.
Why do some sections use different sample sizes?
Not every tribunal judgment records every variable. For example, country information is available for almost the entire dataset, while tribunal region and legal representation are recorded less consistently. Each section clearly states the number of cases included in its analysis.
Why are median awards used instead of average awards?
Employment Tribunal compensation is highly skewed. A relatively small number of exceptionally large awards can significantly increase the average (mean), making it less representative of a typical case. For this reason, the report primarily uses median awards, while also publishing mean awards to illustrate the overall distribution.
Does a higher success rate mean my claim is likely to succeed?
No. The statistics describe historical outcomes across thousands of published tribunal decisions. Every Employment Tribunal claim is unique and outcomes depend on many factors, including the evidence available, the legal issues involved and the specific facts of the dispute.
Does legal representation guarantee a better outcome?
No. The research identifies statistical associations rather than cause and effect. Represented claimants often pursue more legally complex claims, making simple comparisons misleading. Within comparable claim types, represented claimants generally achieved higher historical success rates and larger compensation awards, but representation alone cannot determine the outcome of an individual case.
Why are some industries grouped as "Other"?
Employer industry cannot always be identified reliably from published tribunal judgments. Where a confident classification could not be made, employers were grouped into an 'Other' category to preserve data quality. This category is excluded from industry rankings where appropriate.
Can I rely on these statistics as legal advice?
No. This report is intended for research and educational purposes only. It provides historical context based on published tribunal decisions and should not be treated as legal advice. Anyone considering Employment Tribunal proceedings should obtain advice appropriate to their individual circumstances.
How often will this report be updated?
CaseIntel intends to update this research periodically as new Employment Tribunal judgments become available. Future editions will allow trends to be tracked over time while maintaining a consistent methodology.
Conclusion
Employment Tribunal litigation is considerably more complex than headline statistics often suggest.
Across more than 130,000 published Employment Tribunal decisions, this research demonstrates that outcomes vary substantially according to claim type, employer industry, tribunal region, legal representation and other characteristics recorded within tribunal judgments.
Several consistent themes emerge throughout the report. Some claim types succeed frequently but produce relatively modest awards, while others succeed far less often yet generate substantially higher compensation. Industries differ markedly in both claimant success and financial outcomes. Regional variation remains significant, and legal representation appears closely associated with larger historical compensation awards when comparable claims are examined.
These findings reinforce an important point: there is no such thing as an “average” Employment Tribunal claim. Meaningful comparisons require historical cases that genuinely resemble the dispute being considered.
As additional tribunal judgments are published, the dataset will continue to grow, enabling future editions of this report to provide an increasingly comprehensive picture of Employment Tribunal litigation across Great Britain.
Key takeaways
About CaseIntel
CaseIntel is a legal technology platform designed to help claimants, employers and advisers better understand Employment Tribunal claims using historical tribunal data.
Our tools combine structured analysis of published tribunal judgments with statistical benchmarking to provide personalised insights based on comparable historical cases.
This research powers every CaseIntel assessment.
The same dataset behind this report drives our benchmarking tools. Compare your situation to genuinely comparable historical tribunal decisions in minutes.
Continue your research
Plain-English explainers that complement the findings of this report.
Based on 130,984 published Employment Tribunal decisions spanning January 2014 to May 2026.
© 2026 CaseIntel. Research provided for informational purposes only. Not legal advice.