1) Active Security Solutions Ltd 2) Stonegate Pub Company Ltd
Decision Overview
Case Summary
The claimant, a licensed door supervisor, appealed a tribunal decision striking out or making deposit orders on various complaints including one under section 44 ERA (health and safety detriment). The appeal addressed whether the tribunal's refusal to allow written submissions as a disability adjustment was procedurally unfair, whether the claimant was 'designated' for health and safety purposes, and whether sending him home was a detriment. The EAT upheld the tribunal's decision, finding the claimant had not established the refusal caused actual unfairness and that he was not 'designated' under binding precedent in Castano.
Why this outcome?
Claim not well-foundedThe claimant had not established that the refusal of written submission adjustment prevented him from making any further or different submission on a matter ultimately material to the tribunal's decision. Additionally, the tribunal was bound by Castano v. London General Transport Services Limited to find the claimant was not 'designated' for section 44 ERA purposes merely because he incidentally had some health and safety duties as part of his normal role. Although the tribunal erred in its approach to detriment, this error was academic because the claimant was not protected by section 44(1) ERA.
Claim Types
Key Issues
- •Whether refusal to allow written response to oral submissions was material procedural error depriving claimant of fair hearing
- •Meaning of 'designated' for purposes of section 44 Employment Rights Act 1996
- •Whether being sent home constituted 'detriment' under section 44 ERA
- •Reasonable adjustments for disability in tribunal proceedings
Cited Laws and Legal Issues
That same event was relied upon as “unfavourable treatment” for the purposes of the section 15 Equality Act, 2010 (“EqA”) complaint as an act of discrimination “arising from” disability.
©EAT 2026 2 [2026] EAT 16 SUMMARY Practice and procedure; reasonable adjustments for claimant’s disability Section 44 Employment Rights Act, 1996; meaning of “designated” and “detriment”
sability; (c) a complaint of detriment due to carrying out designated health and safety activities; (d) a complaint of protected disclosure detriment; (e) a claim of unlawful deductions from wages; (f) a complaint of disability discrimination by failure to make reasonable adjustments; and (g) a claim for holiday pay.
ages; (f) a complaint of disability discrimination by failure to make reasonable adjustments; and (g) a claim for holiday pay.
Decision Text
Judgment approved by the Court Mr R J Bryce v Active Security Solutions Ltd & Anor. ©EAT 2026 1 [2026] EAT 16 Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EAT 16 Case No: EA-2023-000109-TH EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL Rolls Building Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL Date: 21 January 2026 Before: THE HON. LORD FAIRLEY, PRESIDENT ------------------------ Between: Mr R J Bryce Appellant and 1) Active Security Solutions Limited First Respondent 2) Stonegate Pub Company Limited Second Respondent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr David Green, appearing pro bono for the Appellant No representation or appearance for the First Respondent Ms Rezaie (instructed by Fieldfisher LLP) for the Second Respondent Hearing dates: 20 and 21 January 2026 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT Judgment approved by the Court Mr R J Bryce v Active Security Solutions Ltd & Anor. ©EAT 2026 2 [2026] EAT 16 SUMMARY Practice and procedure; reasonable adjustments for claimant’s disability Section 44 Employment Rights Act, 1996; meaning of “designated” and “detriment” The claimant was employed by the first respondent as a licensed door supervisor. He was assigned to work at the second respondent’s premises. On 1 August 2021, he was sent home after an incident which resulted in police involvement. He brought a range of complaints against the respondents, one of which was of detriment due to carrying out designated health and safety activities. The respondents applied in writing to have the complaints struck out or, in the alternative, for deposit orders. A hearing was fixed on those applications. Prior to the hearing, the respondents lodged and intimated a skeleton argument. At the hearing, the skeleton was supplemented by oral submissions. The claimant asked to be allowed to...
Case Facts
1) Active Security Solutions Ltd 2) Stonegate Pub Company Ltd
Employer page →View all cases →- Claimant
- Mr R J Bryce
- Case Number
- [2026] EAT 16
- Appeal result
- Appeal outcome unclear · Remitted
- Tribunal
- Employment Appeal Tribunal
- Level
- Appeal
- Decision Date
- 21 January 2026
- Published
- 4 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge The Hon. Lord Fairley, President