1) Westminster City Council 2) Ms V Piquet
Decision Overview
Case Summary
An EAT appeal against a costs order made by an Employment Tribunal. The appellant had brought a victimisation claim under the Equality Act 2010, alleging he was subjected to detriments due to protected acts (bringing claims against previous employers). The Tribunal dismissed the claim, finding the real reason for the detriments was the appellant's dishonesty about his employment history, not the protected acts. The Tribunal ordered the appellant to pay £3,000 costs for unreasonable conduct. The EAT upheld the costs order, finding the Tribunal was entitled to consider the appellant's credibility and had reached a unanimous finding that he had knowingly lied about material facts.
Why this outcome?
Costs: unreasonable conductThe Tribunal was entitled to consider the appellant's credibility and dishonesty about his employment history when determining the respondents' actual reasons for the detriments, as this was a legitimate part of assessing the reliability of the respondents' evidence on causation. The Tribunal reached a unanimous conclusion that the appellant had been knowingly dishonest, which was open to it on the evidence, and this dishonesty about a central fact related to liability justified a costs order under rule 76(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013.
Compensation
Claim Types
Key Issues
- •Whether the Tribunal erred in concluding the appellant had been dishonest about facts central to his victimisation claim
- •Whether dishonesty about employment history constituted unreasonable conduct justifying a costs order
- •Whether the appellant's subjective beliefs about his employment status should have been considered when assessing whether he lied
Cited Laws and Legal Issues
aim form against ORR on 15 July 2022 with Tribunal reference 3204202/2022 in which he had made a complaint of automatically unfair dismissal contrary to section 103A of the Employment Rights Act, 1996 (whistleblowing).
he had made a complaint of automatically unfair dismissal contrary to section 103A of the Employment Rights Act, 1996 (whistleblowing).
Related Cases
Decision Text
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. ...
Case Facts
- Claimant
- Mr A Ikeji
- Case Number
- [2026] EAT 62
- Appeal result
- Appeal outcome unclear
- Tribunal
- Employment Appeal Tribunal
- Level
- Appeal
- Decision Date
- 21 April 2026
- Published
- 22 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge The Hon. Lord Fairley, President
- Representation
- Litigant in person