1) Active Security Solutions Ltd 2) Stonegate Pub Company Ltd

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.

The 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.

Use these claim-type pages to compare this decision with other published tribunal cases, outcome patterns, and visible award data.

• •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

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…