Mr Khalid Mahmood MP

Case Summary

The claimant succeeded in a complaint of unfair dismissal and one complaint of detriment on the ground that the claimant had made a protected disclosure. The claimant's complaints of automatic unfair dismissal and detriment on the ground of making a protected disclosure were dismissed by the Employment Tribunal. The claimant appealed and the matter was remitted to the Employment Tribunal for reconsideration of the detriment and automatic unfair dismissal complaints. On reconsideration, the Employment Tribunal rejected the protected disclosure detriment complaint and dismissed the automatic unfair dismissal complaint.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the appeal on the basis that the Employment Tribunal's reasoning at paragraph 311 was flawed in light of paragraphs 41-43, requiring reconsideration of the tribunal's conclusions on the protected disclosure detriment and automatic unfair dismissal complaints.

• •unfair dismissal on grounds of making a protected disclosure
• •detriment on grounds of making a protected disclosure

Judgment approved by the court for handing down Ms Elaina Cohen v Mr Khalid Mahmood MP © EAT 2025 Page 1 [2025] EAT 134 Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EAT 134 Case No: EA-2024-000811-AT EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL Rolls Building Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL Date: 18 September 2025 His Honour Judge James Tayler - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between : Ms Elaina Cohen Appellant - and - Mr Khalid Mahmood MP Respondent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MS ILKAY CETIN APPLICATION FOR DOCUMENTS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT Judgment approved by the court for handing down Ms Elaina Cohen v Mr Khalid Mahmood MP © EAT 2025 Page 2 [2025] EAT 134 His Honour Judge James Tayler: 1. Ms Cetin has applied for documents after having remotely attended a hearing held pursuant to Rule 3(10) of the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993 (as amended) (“EAT Rules”). 2. It is necessary to set out a little of the background. On 16 August 2025, Ms Cetin requested permission to attend the hearing remotely and asked to be provided with documents. She requested the ET1 (Employment Tribunal Claim Form), ET3 (Employment Tribunal Response Form), Notice of Appeal and Skeleton Arguments of both parties. Ms Cetin stated that she requested the documents because they “are standard public documents in appeal proceedings, necessary to understand the proceedings being observed”. Ms Cetin did not provide any more detail. 3. Ms Cetin provided an address in London from which she proposed to attend. Ms Cetin has a long history of litigation in the Employment Tribunal, Employment Appeal Tribunal and Court of Appeal. 4. I understand that for some months Ms Cetin has been making similar applications on a regular basis that are taking up a considerable amount of judicial and administrative time. 5. So that the Employment Appeal Tribunal had t…