yerty/tribunal-intelligence/award-benchmark — award distributions
What does an award actually look like?
Find out what the tribunal award looks like for claims like yours. Benchmark against thousands of similar claims.
Evidence from published single-claimant decisions — not a prediction of what any individual claim is worth.
How it works
One claim type. One durable report.
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.
Choose the claim type
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.
Yerty builds the report
We load the award picture for that claim type and save a durable report — same credit pool as Case Benchmark. Claim type is fixed after create; a new Generate spends another credit.
Read what awards look like
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.
From Yerty Index™
Specimen medians by claim type.
Illustrative single-claimant medians. A live report adds confidence intervals, size bands, composition and the statutory method for that family.
Inside the report
Built for the award question — nothing else.
Distribution, composition and statutory framing for the claim type you choose. Not a full case journey report; not aggregate press-release headlines.
How claims are resolved
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’.
What awards look like
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.
What an award is made of
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.
Outliers, explained
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.
Statutory figures & estimation
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
Across the claim types people actually bring.
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.
Wages & working time
Unlawful deductions, holiday pay, national minimum wage
Dismissal & redundancy
Unfair dismissal, redundancy pay, related case totals
Discrimination
Disability, sex, race, age, pregnancy & maternity, and more
Whistleblowing & others
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
Numbers you can put on the table.
Anyone sizing or negotiating around an ET money outcome — claimants and LiPs, employers and HR, advisers, and insurers.
Settlement negotiations
Put an offer next to what published awards for that claim type actually look like — median, bands and composition.
Client and stakeholder briefings
Give advisers, HR and insurers a defensible picture of award levels without relying on anecdote or press headlines.
Expectation setting
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
Evidence with limits you can stand behind.
These constraints keep every figure comparable and honest — and stop the report being read as a prediction.
Single-claimant only
Every figure is per person and comparable — multi-claimant totals are excluded.
Whole-case bundling
Totals are for cases involving the claim type, not awards “for” that claim alone.
Published decisions only
Settlements and withdrawals never reach a published money judgment, so they are invisible here.
Median, not mean
The mean is skewed by rare outliers. The report leads with the median and shows uncertainty.
Honesty about the limits
What the report can — and can't — show.
- Show median-led award distributions for a chosen claim type
- Publish a confidence interval on every median
- Explain how awards are composed when the sample supports it
- Surface current statutory caps and estimation method for that family
- Cover wages, dismissal, discrimination, whistleblowing and related claim types
- State whole-case bundling and published-decision limits clearly
- Predict what any individual claim will be awarded
- Replace legal advice or valuation by a solicitor
- Include unpublished settlements or withdrawn claims
- Treat a case total as an award ‘for’ one claim alone
- Headline the mean as if it described a typical case
Place in the product line
Third report product — award-focused.
Alongside Benchmark Report and Claim Compare. 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.
Employment Tribunal Snapshot
High-level context from official HMCTS aggregate statistics. Published aggregate context — not similar-case matching or award composition.
View Tribunal Snapshot →Benchmark Report
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
Sources and limits kept visible.
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.
Private early access
Request early access to Intelligence Hub.
Tell us who you are. We review requests and email you if access is approved. You may also receive example reports and coverage updates — unsubscribe anytime.
Elsewhere on yerty
More from the platform.
Benchmark Report
Source-linked analysis of a defined comparison cohort — outcomes, awards, timing and costs.
View Benchmark Report →yerty/tribunal-intelligence/aiAsk Yerty
AI-assisted tribunal research grounded in the Yerty Index. Inspect cited sources before relying on an answer.
Ask Yerty →yerty/tools/case-benchmarkEmployment Tribunal Snapshot
High-level context from official HMCTS aggregate statistics — published aggregate context, not similar-case matching.
View Tribunal Snapshot →Intelligence Hub is built on published UK employment tribunal decisions. Unpublished settlements, withdrawn claims, and proceedings that weren't selected for publication are not observable. Yerty provides data and analytics — not legal advice.