How much compensation do working time regulations claims award at an employment tribunal?

Across 10,123 UK working time regulations tribunal cases with a recorded remedy since 2017, the median total award was £2,999 and the largest was £3,449,329.

What percentage of working time regulations claims succeed at an employment tribunal?

Of 1,191 working time regulations claims decided on the merits by UK tribunals, 42% were upheld.

Loading…

Top

Working time regulations compensation & tribunal success rate — UK data (page 44) | Tribunal Watch

Claim pillar

Working time regulations employment tribunal cases — UK data 2017–present

Name: Working time regulations UK employment tribunal statistics
Creator: Tribunal Watch
License: https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/

Tribunal Watch has indexed 25,755 UK employment tribunal cases involving working time regulations claims, published on gov.uk since 2017. Where compensation was recorded, the median award was £2,999 (the largest £3,449,329) across 10,123 cases. Tribunals upheld 42% of the 1,191 decided working time regulations claims. These cases name 19,227 distinct employers as respondents.

Total cases: 25,755
Median award: £2,999
Claims upheld: 42%
Largest single award: £3,449,329
Distinct employers: 19,227
England & Wales: 20,044
Scotland: 5,711

Compensation in working time regulations cases

10,123 cases with a recorded award

Median: £2,999
Mean: £7,691
25th percentile: £1,200
75th percentile: £7,959
90th percentile: £17,351
Largest: £3,449,329

Figures are the total award recorded across cases that include a working time regulations claim and a published remedy — 10,123 of 25,755 working time regulations cases. Many tribunal judgments decide liability only, with compensation set at a later hearing, so they are not counted here. A judgment combining several claim types contributes its whole award. Nothing here is legal advice or a prediction of any individual outcome.

Outcomes of working time regulations claims

3,913 adjudicated claims

Outcome	Claims	Share
Struck out	1,343	34%
Withdrawn	1,234	32%
Dismissed	690	18%
Upheld	501	13%
Other	110	3%
Settled	35	1%

Counting only claims a tribunal decided on the merits (upheld or dismissed), 42% of working time regulations claims were upheld — 501 of 1,191. Settled and withdrawn claims are excluded from that rate. Outcomes are recorded per claim, so a judgment can uphold one claim and dismiss another.

Working time regulations cases per year

2017–2026

Year	Cases	Trend
2017	729
2018	951
2019	3,710
2020	4,212
2021	3,367
2022	3,272
2023	3,210
2024	2,807
2025	2,492
2026	1,005

Largest working time regulations awards

Top 8 by total award

Case ref.	Decided	Claimant	Primary respondent	Total award
1404855/2018	5 June 2019	In person For the	University of Southampton	£3,449,329
2202063/2014	8 November 2019	Mr M Epstein For	Government of the State of Qatar	£388,920
3304188/2022	28 July 2023	Cyril Gregory	Petro Trace Limited	£340,213
2204168/2021	23 June 2022	Elle Kim	Finablr Ltd	£279,566
3320831/2021	30 November 2022	Mr Joh Murphy	Remus Corporation UK Limited (in compulsory liquidation)	£234,410
2414266/2021	7 March 2022	Mrs N Denmade and others (see schedule)	Trinity Brands UK Ltd	£219,664
3303037/2023	28 March 2024	Miss K Lynch	Marshall Eaton Holdings Limited	£216,294
1404124/2019	18 February 2020	Miss L Power and 29 others	Pitney Fabrication Co. Ltd	£201,107

Top employers — working time regulations cases

20 ranked by case count

#	Employer	Cases
01	South Lanarkshire Council	372
02	Falkirk Council	251
03	Glasgow City Council	206
04	North Lanarkshire Council	180
05	Kent County Council,	175
06	Argyll & Bute Council	156
07	Royal Mail Group Limited	152
08	Secretary of State for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy	119
09	Midlothian Council	118
10	DHL Services Limited	104
11	Secretary of State for Business & Trade	93
12	The City of Edinburgh Council	88
13	East Renfrewshire Council	77

All working time regulations cases

25,755 cases · page 44 of 516 · chronological

Case ref.	Decided	Claimant	Primary respondent	Jurisdiction	Total award
1600263/2025	8 July 2025	Mrs Samina Barnwell	Sharif Healthcare Ltd	England & Wales	—
1306243/2024	8 July 2025	Mr M Brown	Programable Limited (in voluntary liquidation)	England & Wales	£67,115
6010464/2024	8 July 2025	Mr R Wilson	Moduloc Control Systems Limited	England & Wales	£3,490
3306050/2024	8 July 2025	Ms Stopina unregistered barrister acting as legal assistant. For the	Patrick James Long, William Stephen Long & the personal representations of Patrick William Long (deceased) t/a 'Lutton Farm Partnership' Second Respondent: the personal representations of Patrick William Long (deceased) Third Respondent: Patrick James Long Fourth Respondent: William Stephen Long Fifth Respondent: Lutton Farms Limited (In voluntary liquidation) Sixth Respondent: The Secretary of State - The Insolvency Service	England & Wales	£3,091
2306987/2020	8 July 2025	J Clarke	Sutton Valence Primary School,	England & Wales	—
2304239/2020	8 July 2025	E Pattenden	Kent County Council,

Methodology

Cases on this page are identified by first-pass extraction against the locked §4.4 claim-type taxonomy — a judgment enters the working time regulations caseload if working time regulationsis tagged in its classification output. A single judgment frequently combines multiple claim types, so the same case may appear on more than one claim-type page. Per-claim outcomes come from the second-pass (LLM-assisted) extraction and are recorded for each claim a judgment decides; the success rate counts only claims a tribunal decided on the merits (upheld or dismissed). Award figures are taken from the remedy section of each judgment where present; cases without a quantified award — because the tribunal only determined liability, or because the remedy hearing is pending — are excluded from the compensation figures. Regional splits follow the tribunal's jurisdiction as recorded on gov.uk. Nothing on this page is legal advice or a prediction of any outcome; for any specific matter the gov.uk judgment PDF linked from each case page is the authoritative source.