1) Westminster City Council 2) Ms V Piquet

Case Summary

This EAT appeal concerns a victimisation claim under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010, where the Employment Tribunal found the real reason for withdrawal of a job offer and failure to give opportunity to comment was the appellant's dishonesty about his employment history (specifically regarding his employment with ORR), not any protected act. The Tribunal made a costs order of £3,000 against the appellant for unreasonable conduct. The EAT upheld the costs order, finding the Tribunal's factual conclusion that the appellant had been knowingly dishonest was open to it on the evidence and no error of law had occurred.

The Tribunal was entitled to make factual findings about the appellant's honesty as part of assessing the credibility and reliability of the respondents' evidence on causation. The Tribunal unanimously concluded on the evidence that the appellant had knowingly been dishonest about a central fact (his employment status with ORR) which made it unreasonable to pursue the victimisation claim, meeting the threshold for costs under rule 76(1)(a).

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

• •Whether the Tribunal erred in concluding the appellant had been dishonest about his employment history with ORR, which was central to the victimisation claim
• •Whether dishonesty about material facts in a job application amounts to unreasonable conduct warranting a costs order under rule 76(1)(a)
• •Whether the Tribunal properly considered the appellant's subjective state of mind when finding he had knowingly lied

Judgment approved by the court Ikeji v Westminster City Council & Anor. © EAT 2026 1 [2026] EAT 62 Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EAT 62 Case Nos: EA-2023-001490-JOJ, EA-2024-000048-JOJ EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL Rolls Building Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL Date: 21 April 2026 Before : THE HON. LORD FAIRLEY, PRESIDENT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between : MR A IKEJI Appellant - and - (1) WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL (2) MS V PIQUET Respondents - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr A Ikeji, the Appellant, in person Mr T Lester, of Counsel, for the Respondents Hearing date: 21 April 2026 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT Judgment approved by the court Ikeji v Westminster City Council & Anor. © EAT 2026 2 [2026] EAT 62 SUMMARY Practice and procedure; costs; whether Tribunal erred in concluding that claimant had been dishonest about a fact central to his claim of victimisation The appellant brought a claim in the Employment Tribunal in which he alleged that he had been victimised by the respondents contrary to section 27 of the Equality Act, 2010 (“EqA”). He maintained that he had been subjected to two detriments. The first was said to be the withdrawal, on 23 February 2023, of a job offer previously made to him. The second was a failure to give him an opportunity to comment upon apparent discrepancies in the information provided by him about his employment history in the course of his job application. He submitted that these detriments were each because he had done certain protected acts. Following a full merits and remedy hearing on 28 and 29 November 2023, the Tribunal dismissed his claim. It found that the reason for the detriments was not any protected act, but rather that the appellant had been dishonest with the respondents in the course of his job application. …