PricingAbout
Back to articles

What Employment Tribunal Data Cannot Tell You

8 min read · Updated 29 July 2026

This article applies to England, Wales and Scotland.

In brief: Published Employment Tribunal decisions are a selected and non-random record. Many disputes never generate a published document, while some withdrawals, procedural dismissals and settled cases do. A success rate based on published judgments describes the chosen corpus and denominator, not every dispute or claim presented.

Last updated: 29 July 2026


Published Decisions Are Not All Disputes

A dispute may resolve internally, settle through ACAS, settle after an ET1, be withdrawn, be dismissed procedurally or reach a merits judgment.

Many disputes resolved without a merits decision never appear in the database. However, it is wrong to say settlements and withdrawals never produce published decisions. Some withdrawn proceedings result in a short published judgment dismissing the claim. A settlement can also lead to withdrawal and a procedural dismissal judgment.

A published document therefore does not necessarily mean the merits were decided.

Why Success Rates Disagree

Denominator What it may include
Cases received Presented proceedings
Disposals Merits, withdrawals and other concluded proceedings
Merits outcomes Only substantive decisions
Published documents Published judgments or decisions in the corpus
Classified outcomes Items the chosen method could classify
What to do next
Want to explore tribunal data?
Browse Intelligence Hub

These answer different questions. Avoid saying a merits-only rate will always be higher unless the actual datasets prove it.

Official Statistics and a Published-Decision Corpus

HMCTS statistics measure claims and cases moving through the system. A private corpus measures collected and classified published documents. They are not necessarily consecutive stages of one linked funnel.

Documents, Cases and Complaints

  • Document: one published judgment or decision.
  • Case/proceeding: the overall tribunal matter.
  • Complaint/head: one legal cause of action.

Calling every complaint a “claim” risks confusion with HMCTS terminology.

Extraction Accuracy and Validation

Any accuracy claim should disclose the field, sample size, sampling method, model or rules version, class prevalence, precision/recall, human review and duplicate handling.

A statement such as “88% to 98% accurate” is not independently assessable without that evidence.

Provisional Figures

Backfills can change both rates and counts through new publications, deduplication, document replacement, case linking and corrected classifications. Every figure should carry a computation date and corpus version.

Four Questions to Ask

  1. What exactly is counted?
  2. What is the denominator?
  3. What period and corpus version are covered?
  4. What is missing?

Frequently Asked Questions

Do settled or withdrawn cases ever appear?
Yes. Many do not, but some withdrawals generate published dismissal judgments.

Can published decisions show the settlement rate for every dispute?
No.

Are private corpus counts automatically stable?
No.

Sources

  1. GOV.UK Employment Tribunal decisions — https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions
  2. MoJ Tribunal Statistics — https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/tribunals-statistics
  3. ACAS Employment Tribunals — https://www.acas.org.uk/employment-tribunals
employment tribunal data limitationstribunal success ratepublished tribunal decisionstribunal statistics methodology

About this data

Source
Yerty analysis of the published UK employment tribunal record and official HMCTS / MoJ statistics.
Last updated
29 July 2026
Methodology
How Yerty builds and verifies the tribunal record — coverage & methodology.
Limitations
Figures reflect published decisions and official aggregates for England & Wales. They are not a complete census of every claim, and outcomes vary by claim type, evidence, and facts.
Not legal advice
This article is information only and does not constitute legal advice.

Want AI-assisted tribunal research with Ask Yerty?

Ask Yerty

Ask Yerty

Built on real cases. Reviewed by practising solicitors.

Build on real situationsgiving you grounded insight in what actually happens

Reviewed by a practising SRA-regulated employment solicitorensuring the information on our platform is accurate and reliable

Ministry of Justice LawTechaccepted into the MoJ programme supporting innovation in legal technology

Justice Technology Association membercommitted to ethical, responsible legal technology