Cost of an Employment Tribunal to Employers in 2026

Employers searching for the average cost of an employment tribunal to an employer are rarely looking for a single figure. In practice, no fixed or reliable “average” exists that can be applied safely across cases. Tribunal costs vary widely depending on the nature of the claim, the conduct of the parties, procedural decisions taken by the employer and whether the dispute settles early or proceeds to a full hearing. What employers need is not a headline number, but a defensible understanding of how cost exposure arises, where it escalates and which decisions materially influence the final outcome.

For UK employers, employment tribunal costs are not limited to legal fees or compensation awards. Cost exposure includes management time, internal HR and operational disruption, reputational risk and in some cases long-term workforce consequences. Critically, employment tribunals operate on a no-costs-shifting principle, meaning that even a successful defence will usually leave the employer bearing its own legal costs. This makes early strategic decision-making central to cost control, particularly for employers operating within broader UK employment law obligations and governance expectations.

This article is written as a compliance-grade employer guide, not a general overview. It explains how tribunals assess costs under UK employment law, what employers are legally required to do at each stage of the process, how typical cost ranges arise in practice and how poor procedural or strategic decisions can multiply exposure. It also examines when settlement may reduce risk and when it can create wider commercial or compliance problems. For procedural context, see our guide to how the employment tribunal process works.

What this article is about:
This guide analyses the true cost of employment tribunal claims from an employer’s perspective, explaining how legal fees, compensation, internal disruption and reputational risk combine to determine overall exposure. It is designed to help HR professionals and business owners make informed, defensible decisions about whether to defend, settle or resolve disputes early, while remaining compliant with UK employment law and tribunal procedure.

Section A: What is the average cost of an employment tribunal to an employer?

Employers frequently ask for a single figure that represents the average cost of an employment tribunal to an employer. In practice, this is the wrong question. Employment tribunal costs are not standardised, fixed or predictable in the way court fees or statutory penalties are. Instead, cost exposure arises from a combination of legal, procedural and commercial factors, many of which sit squarely within the employer’s control. Understanding these variables is essential for making defensible decisions about risk, settlement and litigation strategy.

A1. Is there a reliable “average” tribunal cost employers can rely on?

There is no legally meaningful or commercially reliable “average” cost that applies to all employment tribunal claims. Tribunals deal with a wide spectrum of disputes, ranging from low-value wage claims to complex multi-day discrimination or whistleblowing cases. As a result, any attempt to quote a single average figure risks misleading employers and distorting decision-making.

From a legal perspective, employment tribunals operate under a regime where each party ordinarily bears its own legal costs, regardless of outcome. This means that even where an employer successfully defends a claim, it will usually absorb its own solicitor and counsel fees. The absence of routine cost recovery makes tribunal exposure fundamentally different from civil litigation and renders simplistic averages largely irrelevant. For context on how claims progress, see our guide to the employment tribunal.

What the law requires:
There is no statutory tariff or prescribed cost scale for employment tribunal proceedings. Costs are determined by market legal fees, compensation rules specific to each type of claim and the tribunal’s procedural directions.

What employers must decide:
Whether to assess cost exposure using crude averages or by evaluating claim-specific risk factors, including claim type, procedural complexity and potential remedies.

What happens if employers get this wrong:
Over-reliance on averages often leads to delayed settlement, sunk legal costs and reduced leverage once proceedings are underway.

A2. What cost ranges do employers typically face in practice?

Although there is no universal average, employment tribunal claims tend to fall into broad cost bands based on complexity and risk. These ranges are illustrative rather than prescriptive and should always be assessed against the specific facts of the case.

Low-value claims, such as unlawful deduction of wages or holiday pay disputes, may involve legal costs in the region of £5,000 to £10,000 where matters resolve early or proceed to a short hearing. Compensation exposure in these cases is often limited but can still exceed expectations where arrears or multiple claimants are involved.

Mid-range claims, including straightforward unfair dismissal claims, commonly result in employer legal costs of £10,000 to £25,000. Where the claim proceeds to a final hearing, employers must also factor in potential compensation, subject to statutory caps, as well as internal management time and disruption.

High-risk claims, particularly those involving discrimination, whistleblowing or health and safety dismissals, can easily exceed £50,000 in legal fees. These cases often involve extensive disclosure, multiple witnesses and longer hearings. Crucially, compensation in such claims may be uncapped, significantly increasing financial exposure.

What the law requires:
Employers must comply with tribunal procedure regardless of claim value, including disclosure obligations and attendance at hearings.

What employers must decide:
Whether the potential cost band justifies early resolution, robust defence or a hybrid strategy based on risk appetite and precedent.

What happens if employers get this wrong:
Underestimating the upper-end cost of high-risk claims can expose businesses to unplanned financial and reputational harm.

A3. Why similar tribunal claims can cost employers very different amounts

Two claims with similar legal merits can generate vastly different costs depending on how they are managed. Claims brought by litigants in person often require more time to handle due to procedural misunderstandings, repeated amendments or satellite disputes. Poor document management, inconsistent witness evidence or missed deadlines can further inflate costs and undermine the employer’s position.

The tribunal also has wide case management powers. Directions on disclosure, witness evidence and hearing length directly affect the time and cost required to defend a claim. Employers who fail to engage proactively with these processes often incur higher legal fees and reduced strategic control.

What the law requires:
Compliance with tribunal case management orders and procedural deadlines.

What employers must decide:
How actively to manage the litigation process and whether to invest early in strategic legal oversight.

What happens if employers get this wrong:
Costs escalate through procedural inefficiency, weakened credibility and reduced prospects of early resolution.

Section A summary:
There is no single average cost of an employment tribunal to an employer. Meaningful cost assessment requires a risk-based analysis of claim type, procedural complexity and strategic decision-making. Employers who rely on headline averages rather than structured risk evaluation are far more likely to incur avoidable expense and commercial exposure.

Section B: What costs do employers actually pay when defending a tribunal claim?

When employers assess tribunal exposure, there is a tendency to focus narrowly on legal fees or headline compensation figures. In practice, employment tribunal costs are multi-layered. Some costs are obvious and unavoidable, while others arise indirectly from legal obligations, procedural decisions and the way the defence is managed. A clear understanding of where costs arise allows employers to make informed decisions about proportionality, settlement and risk control.

B1. Legal fees: what the law allows and what employers actually pay

Employment tribunals operate on the principle that each party generally bears its own legal costs, regardless of the outcome. Unlike civil courts, there is no automatic entitlement for a successful employer to recover legal fees from the claimant. Costs orders are only made in limited circumstances, such as where a party has acted vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably, or where a claim had no reasonable prospect of success. In practice, this threshold is high and costs recovery remains the exception rather than the rule.

As a result, employers defending tribunal claims must usually budget on the basis that legal fees will be irrecoverable. Solicitors’ costs for preparing a response, managing disclosure, drafting witness statements and attending hearings commonly range from £5,000 to £20,000 for straightforward claims. Figures are indicative and exclude VAT and disbursements. Where cases involve multiple allegations, extensive documentation or contested factual issues, fees increase significantly. Claims involving discrimination or whistleblowing frequently exceed £50,000 in legal fees alone, particularly where counsel is instructed and hearings run over several days. For support with litigation strategy and representation, see our guide to defending employment tribunal claims.

What the law requires:
Employers must comply with tribunal procedure regardless of whether they are legally represented. Representation is optional, but procedural compliance is mandatory.

What employers must decide:
Whether the cost of full legal representation is proportionate to the financial and reputational risk posed by the claim.

What happens if employers get this wrong:
Under-investment in legal strategy can lead to procedural errors, weak defences and higher overall costs, even where the claim could have been contained early.

B2. Compensation awards: when tribunal claims become financially significant

Where a claim succeeds, the tribunal may order the employer to pay compensation designed to place the claimant, so far as possible, in the position they would have been in had the unlawful act not occurred. The scale of compensation varies depending on the type of claim and the losses suffered.

In unfair dismissal claims, compensation consists of a basic award and a compensatory award. The basic award is calculated using a statutory formula based on age, length of service and weekly pay, subject to a statutory cap. For dismissals effective between 6 April 2024 and 5 April 2025, the maximum basic award is £17,130. The compensatory award is intended to cover financial losses arising from dismissal and is capped at 52 weeks’ gross pay or £105,707, whichever is lower, in most cases. For additional context on how awards are assessed in practice, see our guide to unfair dismissal compensation.

However, not all claims are subject to these limits. In cases involving whistleblowing or health and safety dismissals, the compensatory award is uncapped. Claims for unlawful discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 are also uncapped and may include awards for injury to feelings in addition to financial loss. Injury to feelings awards are assessed using the Vento bands, with the upper band for serious cases currently ranging from £29,600 to £49,300, and higher awards possible in exceptional circumstances. For common high-value risk categories, see our guidance on whistleblowing claims and discrimination at work.

What the law requires:
Employers must comply with tribunal awards once issued, including payment deadlines and any additional remedial orders.

What employers must decide:
Whether the potential compensation exposure justifies early settlement or continued defence.

What happens if employers get this wrong:
Failure to assess uncapped compensation risk can expose businesses to liabilities far exceeding initial expectations.

B3. Internal and operational costs employers often overlook

Legal fees and compensation do not reflect the full cost of defending a tribunal claim. Employers must also account for internal time spent managing the dispute. This includes HR involvement, management oversight, document collation, witness preparation and time spent attending hearings. In smaller businesses, these demands often fall on senior leaders, diverting attention from core commercial activities.

Operational disruption can be particularly acute where multiple employees are required to give evidence or where allegations affect team morale and productivity. Even where a claim is ultimately unsuccessful, the cumulative impact on staff engagement and business continuity can be significant.

What the law requires:
Employers must cooperate with tribunal directions and ensure witnesses are available where required.

What employers must decide:
How to balance litigation demands against operational priorities and whether early resolution would reduce disruption.

What happens if employers get this wrong:
Unmanaged internal costs can exceed legal fees, particularly in prolonged or contentious proceedings.

Section B summary:
The true cost of defending an employment tribunal claim extends well beyond legal fees. Compensation exposure, internal disruption and irrecoverable costs mean that employers must assess tribunal risk holistically. Effective cost control depends on early strategic decisions grounded in legal compliance and commercial reality.

Section C: When do employment tribunal costs spiral out of control?

Employment tribunal costs rarely escalate by accident. In most cases, excessive cost exposure is the result of identifiable decision points, procedural failures or strategic misjudgements made by employers during the life of the claim. Understanding where and why costs spiral allows employers to intervene early and retain control over financial, operational and reputational risk.

C1. Procedural mistakes that increase employer cost exposure

Tribunal procedure is deliberately structured to be accessible, but it is also unforgiving of missed deadlines and poor compliance. Employers who fail to file an ET3 response within the prescribed 28-day period risk having judgment entered against them or being required to make an application for relief, often incurring additional legal cost and reputational damage before the substance of the claim is even considered.

Disclosure failures are another common source of cost escalation. Employers are under a legal obligation to disclose all relevant documents, whether helpful or harmful to their case. Incomplete or late disclosure frequently results in further directions, adjournments or adverse inferences being drawn by the tribunal, all of which increase legal fees and weaken the employer’s position.

What the law requires:
Strict compliance with tribunal rules, case management orders and disclosure obligations.

What employers must decide:
Whether to invest early in procedural compliance or risk increased costs through remedial applications and extended proceedings.

What happens if employers get this wrong:
Procedural missteps often convert manageable claims into protracted and expensive disputes.

C2. Claimant conduct and its impact on employer costs

The way a claimant conducts proceedings can materially affect employer costs, even where the underlying claim is weak. Claims brought by litigants in person often require additional time and resources to manage. This may include responding to unfocused allegations, repeated amendments to the claim or correspondence that does not engage properly with tribunal procedure. For practical insight into the challenges employers commonly face, see our guidance on litigants in person.

While tribunals may exercise case management powers to control unreasonable conduct, employers should not assume that such behaviour will lead to cost recovery. In practice, tribunals are reluctant to make costs orders unless the threshold for unreasonable conduct is clearly met. Employers must therefore plan for increased legal spend without any realistic expectation of reimbursement.

What the law requires:
Engagement with the tribunal process regardless of the claimant’s level of representation.

What employers must decide:
How robustly to manage procedural boundaries and whether to seek strike-out or deposit orders in appropriate cases.

What happens if employers get this wrong:
Passive engagement allows procedural inefficiency to drive up legal costs and prolong disputes.

C3. Reputational and regulatory risks as cost multipliers

Tribunal proceedings are generally public. Hearings are open to the press and public, and judgments are published online. Allegations of discrimination, harassment or whistleblowing can therefore generate reputational damage regardless of the eventual outcome. For employers in regulated or client-facing sectors, this exposure can have commercial consequences that far exceed direct tribunal costs.

Reputational harm may also trigger internal issues, such as employee disengagement or increased grievance activity, creating further indirect cost. In some cases, tribunal findings can prompt regulatory scrutiny or impact future enforcement decisions, particularly where systemic failures are identified. Where allegations require internal fact-finding to protect the business position, see guidance on conducting a workplace investigation.

What the law requires:
Transparency in tribunal proceedings and compliance with any resulting orders or recommendations.

What employers must decide:
Whether reputational risk justifies early resolution or confidential settlement.

What happens if employers get this wrong:
Failure to account for reputational exposure can transform a legal dispute into a broader business crisis.

Section C summary:
Tribunal costs escalate when procedural discipline breaks down, claimant conduct goes unmanaged or reputational risks are underestimated. Employers who identify these pressure points early are better placed to contain costs and protect wider business interests.

Section D: Is it cheaper to settle than defend an employment tribunal claim?

Employers frequently assume that settling a tribunal claim will always be cheaper than defending it. While settlement can reduce uncertainty and cap immediate cost exposure, it is not automatically the most cost-effective or commercially sound option. The decision to settle or defend must be grounded in legal risk, financial exposure and the wider implications for workforce management and precedent.

D1. Settlement agreements versus tribunal outcomes

Settlement agreements allow employers and claimants to resolve disputes without proceeding to a final tribunal hearing. In most cases, settlement involves a financial payment by the employer, together with agreed terms governing confidentiality, references and waiver of claims. Settlement figures commonly range from £5,000 to £30,000, although this varies significantly depending on the strength of the claim, compensation exposure and the stage at which settlement is reached.

From a legal perspective, settlement agreements must meet statutory requirements to be enforceable. These include the claimant receiving independent legal advice and the agreement clearly identifying the claims being waived. Employers are also typically required to contribute to the cost of that legal advice, representing an additional but relatively modest expense. Confidentiality provisions do not prevent protected disclosures under whistleblowing legislation.

What the law requires:
Settlement agreements must comply with statutory formalities to validly waive employment claims.

What employers must decide:
Whether the certainty of settlement outweighs the potential cost and risk of defending the claim to conclusion.

What happens if employers get this wrong:
Defective settlement agreements can leave employers exposed to future claims despite having made payment.

D2. When early settlement reduces overall cost and risk

Early settlement can be an effective cost-control strategy where liability risk is high, evidence is weak or internal disruption is already significant. Claims involving procedural defects, poor documentation or inconsistent witness evidence often become more expensive to defend over time, even where compensation exposure is limited.

Settlement may also be commercially attractive where reputational risk is acute or where senior management time would otherwise be diverted for extended periods. In these circumstances, early resolution can preserve business focus and reduce the likelihood of escalation.

What the law requires:
Participation in ACAS early conciliation, where applicable, as a mandatory pre-condition to most tribunal claims.

What employers must decide:
Whether early compromise delivers better value than prolonged litigation, taking into account both financial and non-financial costs.

What happens if employers get this wrong:
Delayed settlement often results in higher legal fees and reduced negotiating leverage.

D3. When settlement can increase long-term employer risk

Settlement is not without risk. Employers who routinely settle weak or speculative claims may encourage further claims, particularly where there is a perception that disputes will be resolved with minimal resistance. This can undermine workplace discipline and create cultural or compliance issues within the organisation.

In some cases, defending a claim to conclusion may be necessary to establish boundaries, protect managerial authority or deter repeat litigation. Employers must also consider the internal message that settlement sends to the wider workforce, particularly in cases involving allegations of misconduct or performance management. For related risk management around disputes and repeat issues, see guidance on handling grievances at work.

What the law requires:
No obligation to settle; employers are entitled to defend claims where appropriate.

What employers must decide:
Whether settlement aligns with longer-term risk management and governance objectives.

What happens if employers get this wrong:
Short-term cost savings may be offset by increased future claims and weakened compliance culture.

Section D summary:
Settlement can reduce tribunal cost exposure, but it is not always the cheapest or safest option. Employers must balance immediate financial certainty against long-term risk, precedent and compliance considerations when deciding whether to settle or defend a claim.

Section E: What does the employment tribunal process itself cost employers?

Beyond legal fees and compensation, the structure and progression of the employment tribunal process itself drives a significant proportion of employer cost exposure. Each procedural stage carries its own financial, operational and strategic implications. Employers who understand where costs arise within the process are better equipped to control escalation and make informed decisions about proportionality and resolution.

E1. ACAS early conciliation: cost, leverage and strategic value

In most cases, a claimant must engage in ACAS early conciliation before issuing an employment tribunal claim. While early conciliation is designed to encourage settlement without litigation, it can also function as an early cost and risk assessment stage for employers. For more detail on how this works and what employers should do at this stage, see our guidance on ACAS early conciliation.

From a cost perspective, early conciliation is relatively low-impact. It does not usually require extensive legal preparation, but it does require employers to assess liability, evidence strength and potential compensation exposure at an early stage. The strategic value lies in the opportunity to resolve disputes before legal costs begin to accumulate or positions become entrenched.

What the law requires:
Participation in ACAS early conciliation as a pre-condition to most tribunal claims.

What employers must decide:
Whether early compromise offers a commercially sensible exit or whether the claim warrants firm resistance.

What happens if employers get this wrong:
Missed early resolution opportunities often lead to higher downstream legal costs.

E2. Preliminary hearings and case management stages

Preliminary hearings are used by tribunals to clarify issues, set timetables and, in some cases, determine jurisdictional or preliminary legal points. Although these hearings are typically shorter than final hearings, they can significantly increase costs by extending the procedural lifecycle of the claim.

Employers may be required to prepare submissions, attend hearings and comply with detailed case management orders. Poor preparation at this stage often results in additional directions, revised timetables or adjournments, each of which increases legal spend and internal disruption.

What the law requires:
Compliance with tribunal directions and active engagement in case management.

What employers must decide:
How much resource to allocate to early procedural stages to reduce later cost escalation.

What happens if employers get this wrong:
Inadequate engagement at preliminary stages frequently leads to longer, more expensive proceedings.

E3. Final hearings: peak cost exposure

Final hearings represent the point at which employer costs typically peak. Legal representation costs increase significantly due to hearing preparation, witness attendance and advocacy. Internal costs also rise, as managers and employees are required to attend, prepare evidence and respond to cross-examination. For practical insight into what employers should expect at this stage, see our guidance on an employment tribunal hearing.

Hearing length varies depending on complexity, with many cases lasting between one and three days. More complex claims, particularly those involving discrimination or whistleblowing, may run for several weeks. Each additional day of hearing materially increases both legal fees and internal disruption.

What the law requires:
Attendance of witnesses and compliance with tribunal procedures at final hearings.

What employers must decide:
Whether the cost and risk of proceeding to a final hearing remains proportionate given the potential outcomes.

What happens if employers get this wrong:
Proceeding to a full hearing without reassessing risk can result in disproportionate cost exposure.

E4. Remedy hearings and appeals: extended cost cycles

Where a claimant succeeds and remedy cannot be agreed, the tribunal may list a separate remedy hearing. This requires further preparation, evidence and attendance, effectively restarting the cost cycle. Employers may also face appeals or applications for reconsideration, which involve additional legal and management time. For employers facing appeals or considering escalation, see our guide to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

Appeals to the Employment Appeal Tribunal are limited to errors of law but can be costly and time-consuming. Even unsuccessful appeals generate significant legal expense and prolong uncertainty.

What the law requires:
Compliance with tribunal decisions and participation in any further ordered proceedings.

What employers must decide:
Whether pursuing or defending appeals offers a realistic prospect of reducing liability or merely increases sunk costs.

What happens if employers get this wrong:
Extended litigation can multiply costs without materially improving the employer’s position.

Section E summary:
Each stage of the employment tribunal process carries distinct cost risks for employers. Early strategic engagement and regular reassessment of proportionality are essential to preventing procedural costs from exceeding the value of the underlying dispute.

FAQs: Average cost of employment tribunal to employer

What is the average cost of an employment tribunal to an employer?

There is no single average cost that employers can safely rely on. In practice, tribunal cost exposure depends on the type of claim, how it is managed and whether it settles early or proceeds to a final hearing. Employers commonly incur legal fees ranging from £5,000 to £20,000 for straightforward claims, with costs exceeding £50,000 in complex cases such as discrimination or whistleblowing. These figures do not include compensation, internal management time or reputational impact. For common low-value claim categories that can still generate disproportionate cost through poor handling, see our guidance on unlawful deduction of wages.

Do employers have to pay legal costs even if they win a tribunal claim?

Yes, in most cases. Employment tribunals generally operate on a no-costs-shifting basis, meaning each party bears its own legal costs regardless of the outcome. Costs orders against claimants are rare and only made where the claimant has acted vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably. Employers should therefore assume their legal fees will be irrecoverable.

What types of tribunal claims are most expensive for employers?

Claims involving unlawful discrimination, whistleblowing or health and safety dismissals are typically the most expensive. These claims often involve extensive evidence, longer hearings and uncapped compensation. By contrast, wage, holiday pay and notice pay claims are usually lower cost, although they can still become expensive if poorly managed.

How much compensation might an employer have to pay?

Compensation varies depending on the claim. In unfair dismissal cases, the basic award is capped and the compensatory award is usually limited to 52 weeks’ gross pay or a statutory maximum. However, compensation for discrimination and whistleblowing claims is uncapped and may include injury to feelings awards, significantly increasing financial exposure.

Is it cheaper for employers to settle tribunal claims?

Settlement can reduce uncertainty and cap immediate cost exposure, but it is not always the cheapest option in the long term. Settlement payments commonly range from £5,000 to £30,000, plus legal costs. Employers must weigh short-term savings against the risk of encouraging further claims or undermining internal compliance culture.

Can tribunal insurance reduce employer cost exposure?

Employment practices liability insurance can help manage tribunal risk, but policies often include exclusions, excesses and notification requirements. Insurance does not remove the need for compliant processes or sound decision-making and may not cover all types of claims or internal costs.

How can employers minimise the risk of tribunal claims and cost escalation?

Employers can reduce risk by maintaining defensible HR processes, training managers, responding promptly to grievances and managing litigation risk as a governance issue rather than a reactive HR task. For a wider risk lens, see our guidance on HR risk management.

Conclusion: how employers should assess tribunal cost risk

The average cost of an employment tribunal to an employer cannot be reduced to a single figure. Meaningful cost assessment requires a structured analysis of legal risk, procedural complexity, compensation exposure and wider commercial impact. Employers who focus only on headline legal fees often underestimate the true cost of litigation and lose strategic control over disputes.

Effective cost management depends on early risk assessment, procedural discipline and informed decision-making about settlement and defence. Treating tribunal exposure as a governance and risk issue, rather than a purely HR or legal problem, allows employers to protect both financial and reputational interests while remaining compliant with UK employment law. For broader coverage of employer obligations and compliance-led decision-making, see our employment law for business resource.

Where employers need a wider understanding of the legal framework that underpins tribunal risk, including common claim types and procedural expectations, our employment tribunal guidance provides additional context.

Glossary

Useful Links