Findings
Research articles that each answer one question about employment tribunal decisions, with charts from published judgments and official statistics.
Free to read · Published judgments and official statistics · Information only — not legal advice
23 findings
The phrase “mental health” doubled to 27% of merits judgments in 2023–25; stress, anxiety, depression or PTSD is named in nearly half, and in four disability discrimination judgments out of five.
EvidenceUpdated 24 Sep 2026
ADHD, autism, dyslexia or dyspraxia appears in 8.2% of merits judgments in 2023–25 against 3.7% in 2017–19; seven of eight physical-health comparison terms moved by under a fifth.
EvidenceUpdated 23 Sep 2026
Fastest proportional rises were in healthcare (×7.2), education (×15) and the public sector (×4.4). The public sector shed letters fastest; retail did not shed them at all while WhatsApp more than tripled.
EvidenceUpdated 22 Sep 2026
Between 2017–19 and 2023–25, email rose from 69% to 82% of substantial judgments, WhatsApp from 4% to 16%, and letters fell from 88% to 80%. Paper-only judgments halved; digital-only doubled; mixed remains the norm.
EvidenceUpdated 22 Sep 2026
Across thirty-six evidence types, judgments mention payslips, fit notes, screenshots and WhatsApp more than in 2017–19, and formal warnings, diaries, photographs and medical reports less. The contract of employment is flat at half of all judgments.
EvidenceUpdated 22 Sep 2026
Witness statements 67%, contract of employment 52%, written warnings and WhatsApp 17% each. Since 2017–19 WhatsApp rose from 3% and written warnings fell from 22%; dismissal letters and investigation reports did not move.
EvidenceUpdated 22 Sep 2026
Medical evidence dominates: occupational health 53%, fit notes 23%, impact statements 19%. Since 2017–19 medical reports fell from 19% to 7% while fit notes and impact statements rose; the contract appears in only 32%.
EvidenceUpdated 22 Sep 2026
These claims are argued on paper: contract of employment 71–72%, payslips 18–27%, bank statements 5–8%. WhatsApp appears in 25% of unlawful deduction judgments — the highest rate anywhere.
EvidenceUpdated 22 Sep 2026
Less employer paperwork than the population and no distinctive evidence of their own. Contract of employment 29–42%, written warnings 8–15%; WhatsApp rose 12–14 points in each; diaries in sex discrimination cases halved to 6%.
EvidenceUpdated 22 Sep 2026
The most witness-heavy claim type: witness statements 75% against 67% overall. WhatsApp rose from 7% to 19%; disciplinary policies fell from 11% to 4% and incident reports from 6% to 2%.
EvidenceUpdated 22 Sep 2026
Mostly contract and pay paperwork: contract of employment 68%, payslips 19%, witness statements 62% (lowest of any claim type). Disciplinary evidence is almost absent; WhatsApp at 9% is also the lowest.
EvidenceUpdated 22 Sep 2026
Not by claim count — average claim types per case edged down from 2.32 to 2.18 — but higher-complexity jurisdictions rose from 40.4% to 43.3% of complaints, and the two longest hearing buckets grew from 8.70% to 15.47%.
ProcessUpdated 15 Sep 2026
24.6% of contested merits rulings succeed, against 34.9% for other unfair dismissal claims — a ten-point gap with non-overlapping confidence intervals, from analysis of published decisions.
OutcomesUpdated 24 Aug 2026
Extensions are granted in roughly one case in seven. Which statutory test applies matters more than how late the claim was, and the observed grant rate has fallen from 17.3% to 13.4% since 2019.
ProcessUpdated 20 Aug 2026
The statutory cap bites in only ~5–7% of unfair-dismissal compensatory awards (445 of 6,158) — for the typical claim it is irrelevant, constraining only the high-earner tail.
AwardsUpdated 29 Jun 2026
Success rates range from 56.8% for pregnancy and maternity down to 11.3% for religion or belief — pregnancy and maternity is the only characteristic where most decided claims succeed.
OutcomesUpdated 29 Jun 2026
The median unfair dismissal award was £6,746 in 2023/24, but maximums reach £995,128. The median, not the headline figure, is the realistic reference point.
AwardsUpdated 29 Jun 2026
Employers are represented in 68.8% of cases, claimants in just 33.4% — and the most common matchup is a represented employer facing an unrepresented claimant (43.3%).
PartiesUpdated 29 Jun 2026
The public sector (15.1%), healthcare (11.5%) and retail (9.7%) lead by employer sector — the top five sectors make up roughly half of all identifiable judgments.
PartiesUpdated 29 Jun 2026
Among ~30,040 awarding cases the most common adjustments are the ACAS uplift (9.8%, +17%), Polkey reductions (6.3%, −49%) and contributory fault (5.9%, −40%) — the headline award is rarely the final figure.
AwardsUpdated 29 Jun 2026
Costs are rare — ordered in at least 2.4% of cases. When they land, claimants pay nearly twice as often as employers, and at seven times the median (£7,142 vs £1,000).
PartiesUpdated 29 Jun 2026
A reconsideration is made in about 4.2% of published cases — roughly 1 in 24. Most tribunal decisions are final.
ProcessUpdated 29 Jun 2026
The state backstops statutory payments via the National Insurance Fund — making the Secretary of State one of the UK's most-named tribunal respondents (~1 in 70 cases), with a median award of £5,010.
AwardsUpdated 29 Jun 2026
