Moss Bros Group Ltd

Case Summary

The claimant was dismissed in 2019. In 2020 he began a claim including multiple complaints of discrimination during employment going back to 2017, and unfair dismissal. The discrimination complaints were struck out in 2023 as no longer capable of a fair trial due to the unavailability of witnesses caused by the respondent's insolvency process. The unfair dismissal and holiday pay claims proceeded to a full hearing in 2024, where the claimant's applications to postpone were refused.

The tribunal heard the unfair dismissal and holiday pay claims at a full hearing in 2024 and found them not well-founded on their merits.

• •Fair trial
• •Postponement

Judgment approved by the court for handing down Boateng v Moss Bros Group Limited © EAT 2026 Page 1 [2026] EAT 50 Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EAT 50 Case No: EA-2023-001458-NK EA-2024-000786-NK EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL Rolls Building Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL Date: 2 April 2026 Before: HIS HONOUR JUDGE AUERBACH - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between: ANTHONY BOATENG Appellant - and – MOSS BROS GROUP LIMITED Respondent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Daniel Hallström (instructed via the Free Representation Unit) for the Appellant Paul Smith (instructed by Gordons LLP) for the Respondent Hearing date: 3 February 2026 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT Judgment approved by the court for handing down Boateng v Moss Bros Group Limited © EAT 2026 Page 2 [2026] EAT 50 SUMMARY PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE Strike out; Postponement The claimant was dismissed in 2019. In 2020 he began a claim including multiple complaints of discrimination during employment going back to 2017, and unfair dismissal. Progress of the tribunal litigation was substantially delayed by the Covid-19 pandemic and a period during which the respondent was subject to a CVA. At a preliminary hearing in 2023 the tribunal struck out the discrimination complaints on the basis that they were no longer capable of a fair trial. In the particular circumstances of this case the tribunal did not err in doing so. This decision considers how a tribunal should approach the “fair trial” issue in th…