General information only — not legal advice. Published by Edward & Amaury Solicitors, solicitors regulated by the SRA (no. 800525). How that affects what you read.

Employment Law No Win No Fee — England & Wales

England & WalesLast reviewed 2 August 2026

Employment law claims — including unfair dismissal, discrimination, and whistleblowing — can sometimes be pursued on a no win no fee basis. Employment tribunals do not routinely award costs, making CFA availability more selective than in personal injury cases.

What Employment Law Claims Can Be Brought on No Win No Fee?

Direct Answer: Common no win no fee employment claims include unfair dismissal, workplace discrimination, harassment, whistleblowing, and redundancy disputes. Employment tribunal claims require ACAS early conciliation first. Some solicitors use CFAs; others prefer DBAs (capped at 35% of damages).

  • Unfair dismissal — termination without fair reason or fair procedure (requires 2 years' service, with exceptions)
  • Discrimination — Equality Act 2010 protections for age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage/civil partnership, pregnancy/maternity, race, religion/belief, sex, and sexual orientation
  • Whistleblowing — detriment or dismissal for making a protected disclosure (Employment Rights Act 1996, Part IVA)
  • Wrongful dismissal — dismissal in breach of contract (e.g., without proper notice)
  • Constructive dismissal — resignation due to the employer's fundamental breach of contract
  • Unlawful deduction from wages — Employment Rights Act 1996, s.13
  • TUPE claims — protection under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006

How Does the Employment Tribunal Process Work?

Employment tribunals are specialist courts that hear employment disputes. Claims are filed using an ET1 form, and the respondent employer files an ET3 response. Cases proceed through preliminary hearings, disclosure, and a final hearing. The tribunal panel typically comprises an Employment Judge sitting alone (for unfair dismissal) or with two lay members (for discrimination claims).

Why Are CFAs Less Common in Employment Cases?

In civil litigation, the losing party typically pays the winning party's costs. This 'costs-shifting' mechanism makes CFAs financially viable. Employment tribunals, however, are designed to be accessible to unrepresented claimants and rarely award costs. This means a solicitor on a CFA cannot expect to recover their costs from the respondent if they win, making it harder to offer no win no fee terms. Cases are most likely to be taken on CFA where damages are substantial (discrimination, whistleblowing) or where settlement is highly likely.

Acas Early Conciliation

Before filing a tribunal claim, you must notify Acas and participate in Early Conciliation. An Acas conciliator will attempt to facilitate a settlement. If conciliation is unsuccessful, Acas issues an Early Conciliation certificate, which is required to submit an ET1. The process typically takes up to 6 weeks.

Frequently Asked Questions

Where this applies: This page covers England and Wales. The rules in Scotland and Northern Ireland are different.

Sources for this page

Every rule stated above is based on the primary sources below. Each link goes to the legislation, court rule or regulator itself so you can check it. Last verified 2 August 2026.

  1. Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, s.58 (conditional fee agreements)

    The provision that makes CFAs lawful and enforceable. CFAs derive from this section, not from LASPO.

  2. Conditional Fee Agreements Order 2013, arts. 4–5 · in force from 1 April 2013

    Art. 4 caps the success fee at 100% of base costs. Art. 5 caps what may be taken from damages in personal injury at 25% of PSLA plus past pecuniary loss, net of CRU, at first instance.

  3. Civil Procedure Rules, Part 44 (incl. rr.44.13–44.17, QOCS)

    Qualified one-way costs shifting and its exceptions. Rule 44.14 was amended with effect from 6 April 2023.

Who wrote and checked this page

Written and published by
Edward & Amaury Solicitors (Edward & Amaury Ltd, company no. 12195443), regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under no. 800525.
Legal review
Checked for England & Wales by Edward & Amaury Solicitors Solicitors regulated by the SRA (no. 800525) (verify on the regulator’s register).Review is recorded against the firm. The individual reviewer is not named on this page.
Review dates
Last reviewed 2 August 2026. Next review due 2 February 2027.

Fee rules change. California’s medical malpractice fee limits changed on 1 January 2023, and the QOCS rules in England and Wales changed on 6 April 2023. If you spot something out of date, tell us — we publish corrections.

Where this applies: This page covers England and Wales. The rules in Scotland and Northern Ireland are different.

Sources for this page

Every rule stated above is based on the primary sources below. Each link goes to the legislation, court rule or regulator itself so you can check it. Last verified 2 August 2026.

  1. Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, s.58 (conditional fee agreements)

    The provision that makes CFAs lawful and enforceable. CFAs derive from this section, not from LASPO.

  2. Conditional Fee Agreements Order 2013, arts. 4–5 · in force from 1 April 2013

    Art. 4 caps the success fee at 100% of base costs. Art. 5 caps what may be taken from damages in personal injury at 25% of PSLA plus past pecuniary loss, net of CRU, at first instance.

  3. Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, ss.44–46 · in force from 1 April 2013

    Ended recoverability of success fees and ATE premiums from the losing party. Did not create or regulate CFAs.

  4. Civil Procedure Rules, Part 44 (incl. rr.44.13–44.17, QOCS)

    Qualified one-way costs shifting and its exceptions. Rule 44.14 was amended with effect from 6 April 2023.

Who wrote and checked this page

Written and published by
Edward & Amaury Solicitors (Edward & Amaury Ltd, company no. 12195443), regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under no. 800525.
Legal review
This page has not yet been through independent legal review. It is written from the primary sources listed below, which you can check directly.
Review dates
Last reviewed 2 August 2026. Next review due 2 February 2027.

Fee rules change. California’s medical malpractice fee limits changed on 1 January 2023, and the QOCS rules in England and Wales changed on 6 April 2023. If you spot something out of date, tell us — we publish corrections.