Martello Piling Ltd

Case Summary

This is an EAT appeal against a preliminary hearing decision by the ET that excluded evidence of a protected pre-termination negotiation under section 111A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant appealed the ET's decision that section 111A applied globally to exclude the protected conversation from all of his claims (unfair dismissal, unlawful deduction of wages, and part-time worker discrimination). The EAT held that section 111A only applies to unfair dismissal claims and the ET erred in excluding the evidence from the other claims; the EAT also found that the ET erred in its analysis of improper conduct by considering only the words and manner of the meeting rather than the cumulative circumstances including the ambush nature of the meeting and denial of a companion.

The EAT found that section 111A(1) of the ERA 1996 applies only to unfair dismissal claims and not to other claims such as unlawful deduction from wages or part-time worker discrimination. Therefore, the ET erred in directing that evidence of the protected conversation should be excluded from all claims. Additionally, the ET's assessment of improper conduct under section 111A(4) was incomplete because it considered only what was said and how it was said at the meeting, rather than considering the circumstances in the round, including the claimant's complaints about being ambushed and denied the opportunity to bring a companion.

• •Whether section 111A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 applies to non-unfair dismissal claims (unlawful deduction of wages and part-time worker discrimination)
• •Whether section 111A protection is limited to ordinary unfair dismissal and excludes automatic unfair dismissal claims
• •Whether the ET erred in applying section 111A exclusion globally to all claims rather than only to unfair dismissal
• •Whether the ET properly considered improper behaviour under section 111A(4) including cumulative effect of ambushing employee, denying right to companion, and short timeframe
• •Whether the ET's conclusion that the employer took advice was supported by evidence or was perverse

Judgment approved by the Court for handing down L Tarbuc v Martello Piling Ltd © EAT 2026 Page 1 [2026] EAT 58 Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EAT 58 Case No: EA-2025-000625-RS EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL Rolls Building Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL Date: 28 April 2026 Before : JUDGE STOUT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between : Mr L Tarbuc Appellant - and - Martello Piling Limited Respondent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The Appellant in person Patrick Keith (instructed by George Green LLP) for the Respondent Hearing date: 16 April 2026 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT Judgment approved by the Court for handing down L Tarbuc v Martello Piling Ltd © EAT 2026 Page 2 [2026] EAT 58 SUMMARY TRIBUNAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – SECTION 111A EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS ACT 1996 Prior to the termination of the claimant’s employment purportedly by reason of redundancy, the respondent employer held a conversation with him that was intended by the respondent to be protected by section 111A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996) as a pre-termination negotiation. The claimant submitted that section 111A did not apply as the respondent’s conduct had been “improper” under section 111(4). The Employment Tribunal rejected the claimant’s argument and held that section 111A applied. It directed that the fact and content of the protected conversation were therefore not admissible, that documents relevant to it need not be disclosed and all references to it should be redacted from the pleadings and the documents in the bundle for the hearing. Held:- (1) The claimant had brought claims for unlawful deduction from wages and less favourable treatment as a part-time worker as well as unfair dismissal. Section 111A only applies to unfair dismissal and the judge had therefore erred in directi…