yerty/tribunal-intelligence/award-benchmark — award distributions
See what tribunal awards look like for a chosen claim type. Figures come from thousands of similar published claims.
Evidence from published single-claimant decisions — not a prediction of what any individual claim is worth.
How it works
Pick the jurisdiction that matches the matter. Yerty builds a paid report from published single-claimant awards for that claim type — median-led, with limits stated.
Select the jurisdiction that matches the matter — unfair dismissal, wages, discrimination strands, redundancy, whistleblowing and more. There is no default; the claim type you pick drives the whole report.
Claim type
We load the award picture for that claim type and save a durable report — same credit pool as a Benchmark Report. Claim type is fixed after create; a new Generate spends another credit.
Award Benchmark Report
Loading award picture for pregnancy & maternity
Median-led figures with confidence intervals, how awards are composed where the sample supports it, outlier context, and current statutory framing — evidence for negotiation and advice, not a prediction.
£12.4k
Median award
£4.3–23k
Middle half
536
Sample
Example claim type and figures · Specimen from the Yerty Index
From Yerty Index™
Illustrative single-claimant medians. A live report adds confidence intervals, size bands, composition and the statutory method for that family.
Inside the report
Distribution, composition and statutory framing for the claim type you choose. Not a full case journey report; not aggregate press-release headlines.
Most claims settle or withdraw before a published money judgment. The report states that honestly so award figures are never mistaken for an overall ‘win rate’.
Median, range and size bands for single-claimant awards — with a published confidence interval on the median so uncertainty is visible, not hidden. The mean is shown but never headlined.
Where the sample is strong enough: the heads that commonly appear — injury to feelings, financial loss, basic and compensatory awards, interest — and typical amounts when present.
The largest published awards are real, but not typical. The report shows why seven-figure totals are usually tax, long earnings loss and grossing-up — not a typical injury-to-feelings figure.
Current caps, week’s-pay limits and family-specific rules (including Vento bands where they apply), plus a clear method for estimating an award — bound to live statutory rates, not stale copy.
Claim coverage
Eighteen claim-type reports across wages and working time, dismissal and redundancy, discrimination (including pregnancy & maternity), whistleblowing, contract, written statements and related types — each with family-correct framing, not a discrimination template with swapped numbers.
Unlawful deductions, holiday pay, national minimum wage
Unfair dismissal, redundancy pay, related case totals
Disability, sex, race, age, pregnancy & maternity, and more
Public interest disclosure, contract, written statements, TUPE
Pregnancy & maternity is reported as its own strand — official aggregates often fold it into sex discrimination. Small samples carry an explicit caution; thin categories are held to distribution-only or rollup views.
Who it's for
Anyone sizing or negotiating around an ET money outcome — claimants and LiPs, employers and HR, advisers, and insurers.
Put an offer next to what published awards for that claim type actually look like — median, bands and composition.
Give advisers, HR and insurers a defensible picture of award levels without relying on anecdote or press headlines.
Separate typical awards from rare outliers, and show why large totals are usually earnings and tax — not the middle of the distribution.
Guardrails that define the product
These constraints keep every figure comparable and honest — and stop the report being read as a prediction.
Every figure is per person and comparable — multi-claimant totals are excluded.
Totals are for cases involving the claim type, not awards “for” that claim alone.
Settlements and withdrawals never reach a published money judgment, so they are invisible here.
The mean is skewed by rare outliers. The report leads with the median and shows uncertainty.
Honesty about the limits
Place in the product line
Alongside Benchmark Report and Claim Adjustments Report. Use Award Benchmark when the question is what awards look like. Use a cohort Benchmark Report when you need outcomes, timing and costs together. Use Tribunal Snapshot for free aggregate context.
High-level context from official HMCTS aggregate statistics. Published aggregate context — not similar-case matching or award composition.
View Tribunal Snapshot →A Benchmark Report analyses a defined comparison cohort across outcomes, awards, timing and costs. An Award Benchmark Report focuses on award distributions for a claim type — what awards look like when one is made.
View Benchmark Report →Sources and limits
Yerty links figures, reports and AI-assisted answers back to underlying tribunal decisions. Coverage, methodology and known limits are stated clearly, including what published tribunal data can and cannot show.
Published decisions are observable; unpublished settlements, withdrawn claims and unreported outcomes are not.
Intelligence Hub is built on published UK employment tribunal decisions. Yerty provides data and analytics — not legal advice.
Intelligence Hub
Explorer is free: browse and read 160,000+ decision documents, with 5 keyword searches a month and a dashboard preview. Describes published decisions; does not predict any individual case.
Elsewhere on yerty
