Relied upon the case of Selkent and submitted that the proposed amendment should not be allowed, lacked sufficient detail, had no legal basis, was potentially time barred and that there would be prejudice to the

Since 2017, Relied upon the case of Selkent and submitted that the proposed amendment should not be allowed, lacked sufficient detail, had no legal basis, was potentially time barred and that there would be prejudice to the has appeared as a respondent in 1 employment tribunal case, with £0 in total awards recorded against the employer.

Indexed: 2 August 2026

Total cases: 1
Total awarded against: £0
Largest award: —
Most common claim: Unfair dismissal

Cases by claim type

1 distinct category

#	Claim type	Cases	Relative share
01	Unfair dismissal	1

All cases

1 case · page 1 of 1 · chronological

Case ref.	Decided	Jurisdiction	Claimant	Claim types	Award
4110369/2021	15 March 2022	Scotland	(sitting alone) Mr I Major	Unfair dismissal	—

Methodology

Data extracted from published employment tribunal judgments on gov.uk. Case reference, decision date, judge, venue and claim categories come from structured metadata. Claimant and respondent names are extracted from the judgment PDF text, and a second LLM-assisted pass adds per-claim outcomes, key findings, and any compensation awarded. Many UK tribunal decisions are liability-only — the remedy is set at a later hearing — so a case can correctly show an outcome with no award figure. See how the data is built.

Relied upon the case of Selkent and submitted that the proposed amendment should not be allowed, lacked sufficient detail, had no legal basis, was potentially time barred and that there would be prejudice to the — employment tribunal cases | Tribunal Watch