Latest tribunal judgments.

(1) WKCIC Group T/A Capital City College Group (2) Ms Odu: [2026] EAT 90

The claimant appealed the Employment Tribunal's dismissal of his claims for direct discrimination on grounds of race, sex, and age. The appeal challenged the Tribunal's finding that there was insufficient evidence to shift the burden of proof. The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the ET's decision, finding that the Tribunal correctly applied the legal principles for burden of proof and reached factual findings entirely open to it on the evidence.

The Health and Safety Executive: [2026] EAT 88

The claimant brought four out-of-time appeals against employment tribunal decisions relating to disability, age and sex discrimination claims, arguing delay was caused by ill health and personal circumstances. The EAT upheld the Registrar's refusal to extend time, finding the claimant had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances, her medical evidence did not establish her conditions prevented timely appeals, and the underlying appeals lacked merit and were likely rendered academic by a binding COT3 settlement.

British Broadcasting Corporation: [2026] EAT 92

The claimant, a BBC Scotland television announcer with type 2 diabetes causing exhaustion, appealed an ET decision dismissing her disability discrimination claims. The EAT found the ET erred in law by concluding the BBC lacked knowledge of her disability between June and November 2023, and by failing to properly assess whether excusing her from late shifts was a reasonable adjustment. The appeal was partially allowed, with the EAT allowing Ground 1 (knowledge of disability) and finding the BBC had or ought to have had knowledge of the claimant's disability.

Hudson Business Centres Ltd: [2026] EAT 91

The claimant appealed a case management decision refusing her application to amend her disability discrimination claim to include direct discrimination under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010. The EAT held that the claimant's paper apart to the ET1, read fairly and in context, contained sufficient factual averments to support a claim for direct discrimination based on her dyslexia, and that no formal amendment was required as the claim was already extant on the pleadings.

YY: [2026] EAT 89

An assistant head teacher was summarily dismissed for sending a sexually inappropriate message to a minor while under duress in a coercive relationship, and for failing to report the matter. She appealed on wrongful dismissal grounds. The EAT found the Employment Tribunal erred by treating duress as irrelevant to whether the conduct constituted gross misconduct, and remitted the case for reconsideration on whether the circumstances should be taken into account in objectively assessing whether the breach undermined trust and confidence.

Essex County Council: [2026] EAT 86

The claimant, a social worker for Essex County Council, succeeded in a complaint of indirect disability discrimination (failure to permit participation in investigation) and constructive unfair dismissal. The EAT considered whether the Employment Tribunal erred in compensating her full loss of earnings for the discrimination complaint without applying the unfair dismissal statutory cap, and whether the tribunal's assessment of future loss of earnings and pension loss was correct. The EAT found errors in law regarding future loss of earnings and pension loss assessment, but upheld the tribunal's finding that loss of earnings flowed from the single act of indirect discrimination.

Mr Jaiden Nash: [2026] EAT 85

This is an EAT appeal against the ET's refusal to grant the respondent (Costco) an extension of time to submit its response to race discrimination and harassment claims. The ET found that the respondent's explanation for the 10-month delay (that it was unaware of the claim) was false, as tribunal correspondence had been received at the warehouse and ignored, and emails had been deliberately deleted by the General Manager. The EAT upheld the ET's decision, finding no legal error in refusing the extension.

Introhive UK Ltd: [2026] EAT 82

An EAT appeal against a tribunal's refusal to grant a witness order for Mr Faisal Abassi on the fourth day of a whistleblowing hearing. The claimants sought to adduce evidence from a previously unwilling witness but failed to disclose the content of his draft statement to the tribunal, providing only topic headings. The appeal was refused on the grounds that the tribunal was not in a position to assess the significance of the evidence without knowing what it would contain.

Pauline Peace: [2026] EAT 81

This is an EAT appeal concerning procedural law and case management. The appeal concerns whether the Employment Tribunal erred in identifying complaints and factual disputes in a manner that effectively amended the claim form without properly applying the Selkent test for amendments, which requires balancing injustice and hardship to both parties if the amendment is allowed or refused. The EAT held the tribunal erred in law and remitted the matter for reconsideration with proper application of amendment principles.

Tribu Hair Studio Ltd: 6032196/2025

The claimant claimed unpaid wages including accrued holiday pay and an unpaid bonus balance from 2024. The tribunal found the respondent liable for unauthorised wage deductions of £1201.41 and breach of contract in failing to pay the outstanding bonus of £1900.00, finding the bonus agreement was unconditional and could not be withheld for alleged subsequent misconduct.

Kirklees Council: [2026] EAT 80

An appeal against an Employment Tribunal decision that dismissed complaints of unfair dismissal and trade union detriment brought by a trade union branch secretary. The claimant was dismissed for conduct (aggressive behaviour and bullying), and claimed the dismissal was automatically unfair because it was motivated by his trade union activities. The EAT upheld the ET's decision, finding no error in law and concluding that the factual reason for dismissal was the conduct allegations, not trade union activities.

Wipro Ltd: [2026] EAT 73

The claimant appealed the Employment Tribunal's dismissal of his unlawful deductions claim relating to a kitty bonus. The claimant contended he was entitled to 1% of revenues from a John Lewis Partnership contract under a bonus scheme announced in March 2020, but received only a capped amount of $150,000. The EAT found the Tribunal erred in law by treating the Sector Lead's subjective view that further approval was required as determinative, and by allowing the respondent to introduce a cap after the original bonus parameters had been communicated and satisfied.

Ryanair DAC and Ryanair UK Ltd: 3203235/2022

The claimant, a Black pilot employed by Ryanair between February 2019 and May 2024, claimed direct race discrimination, victimisation, unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal. The tribunal dismissed the race discrimination claims but found victimisation succeeding on three specific issues (grievance rejection terms, grievance appeal outcome, and the 1 July 2022 bar on CU consideration), and found the dismissal procedurally unfair though concluded there would have been a 100% chance of fair dismissal had proper procedure been followed, resulting in no compensatory award but a basic award reduced by 75% for contributory conduct.

Willerby Holiday Homes Ltd: 6041506/2025

The claimant, the claimant, brought a complaint of pregnancy or maternity discrimination against Willerby Holiday Homes Limited. The employment tribunal struck out the complaint under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2024 as having no reasonable prospect of success.

I: 6018520/2024 and 6015760/2024: 6018520/2024

The claimant brought claims for sexual harassment, victimisation, whistleblowing detriment, health and safety detriment, and unfair dismissal against the respondent. The tribunal heard evidence over 8 days in April 2026 and deliberated in May 2026. All claims were dismissed as not well-founded in this liability judgment.

Primark Stores Ltd: 6012811/2025

The claimant brought complaints of unfair dismissal and direct race and/or religion discrimination against Primark Stores Limited following his dismissal. The tribunal found the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal was not well founded and dismissed his complaints of direct race and religion discrimination.

Secretary of State for Justice: [2026] EAT 78

This is an EAT appeal from a Registrar's order refusing an extension of time to properly institute an appeal. The claimant's solicitors uploaded a covering letter instead of the judgment and reasons with their Notice of Appeal, which was otherwise compliant and submitted within the deadline. The EAT granted the extension of time, finding the omission was not a minor error but that the balance of justice favoured granting relief given the prompt rectification and the distinction between lodging nothing in time versus submitting the appeal in time with an omitted required document.

Mr Ricky Garrett: [2026] EAT 77

The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the appeal by the claimant from an Employment Tribunal decision that had upheld complaints of direct belief and race discrimination. The EAT held that the tribunal erred in finding three instances of treatment were motivated by the claimant's protected belief regarding systemic racism, and erred in finding direct race discrimination, as there was no proper factual basis to infer such discrimination.

NHS England: 6004312/2024

The claimant claimed disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and victimisation against NHS England following a failed progression and redeployment process. The tribunal found that while aspects of the respondent's handling were unsatisfactory, the statutory tests under sections 15, 20 and 27 of the Equality Act 2010 were not established, and accordingly dismissed the claims.

Compass Cleaning Solutions Ltd: 6009532/2024

The claimant's claim against Compass Cleaning Solutions Ltd was struck out under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The tribunal had issued a warning letter on 27th January 2026 advising that the claim might be struck out due to non-compliance with previous tribunal orders and failure to actively pursue the claim. The claimant failed to respond to the warning letter, and the tribunal proceeded to strike out the claim on 28th May 2026.

Supernova Resourcing: 6010128/2024

The claimant's claim against Supernova Resourcing was struck out under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The tribunal issued a warning letter on 26 January 2026 notifying the claimant that it was considering striking out the claim due to lack of active pursuit and because the identity of the respondent was unknown. The claimant failed to respond by the deadline of 9 February 2026, and the tribunal proceeded to strike out the claim.

The Bishop Wheeler Catholic Academy Trust: 6014422/2026

The claimant's claim was struck out under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 because the claimant had been employed for less than two years and therefore lacked the qualifying period required to bring the claim. The claimant was given an opportunity to respond to a strike-out warning but failed to reply.

Kier Ltd: 6026175/2025

The claimant, a mixed race Commercial Administrator employed by Kier Ltd, brought claims for harassment related to race, victimisation, and direct race discrimination arising from her employment from November 2024 to July 2025. The tribunal dismissed all three claims as not well founded after a five-day hearing, finding no prima facie case of discrimination and no victimisation.

Leviat Ltd: 6005348/2024

At a preliminary hearing, the claimant's claims for constructive unfair dismissal and disability-related harassment were struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. The claimant was ordered to pay deposits of £150 each to continue pursuing claims of sex discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments.

Turning Tide: 6019321/2024

The claimant brought claims for breach of contract (while still employed), breach of GDPR, privacy and/or confidentiality against the respondent. The tribunal dismissed all claims for want of jurisdiction, finding it lacked power to hear them.

T B Whyte: 6016659/2026

The claimant applied for interim relief pending the determination of her claim of unfair dismissal against Thomas Boyde Whyte. The tribunal dismissed the application for interim relief.

London Healthcare Locums Ltd (in liquidation): 6032552/2025

The claimant presented a claim for unlawful wage deductions against London Healthcare Locums Limited (in liquidation). The respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The tribunal determined that unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages had been made and ordered the respondent to pay £5,747.50 gross.

ISS Mediclean Ltd: 6014314/2024

The claimant's claim for unfair dismissal, racial discrimination, harassment and whistleblowing detriment was struck out. The claimant failed to comply with case management orders made by Employment Judge Battisby and varied by Regional Employment Judge Jones, and had not communicated with the tribunal or respondent for over six months. The tribunal found that a fair final hearing would not be possible given the time constraints and lack of cooperation from the claimant.

PAB Coventry Ltd: 6046346/2025

The claimant's unfair dismissal complaint was struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success. The claimant lacked the minimum two years' service required by section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and did not fall within any of the exceptions set out in section 108(3). The claimant failed to respond to a strike-out warning letter and the claim was therefore struck out.

Cleanco Cleaning Services Ltd: 6036295/2025

This is a preliminary hearing in which the tribunal determined that the claimant was an employee of Cleanco Cleaning Services Ltd at the relevant time. The decision allows the claim to proceed to full merits hearing.

Halfords Autocentre: 6022080/2025

The claimant's employment claim against Halfords Autocentre was struck out under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The Tribunal found that the claimant had failed to comply with its orders and had not actively pursued the claim, and the claimant did not respond to a warning letter dated 18 March 2026 giving an opportunity to explain or request a hearing.

Chorlton Family Practice (“CFP”) and Others: 2401089/2024

The claimant, a locum GP at Chorlton Family Practice in Manchester, claimed she was subjected to detriments for making protected disclosures about concerns regarding another doctor's practice. The respondents conceded the disclosures were protected but disputed causation. The tribunal found all claims not well-founded, as the claimant failed to establish that the alleged detriments were because of her protected disclosures.

Redspot Care Ltd: 3200013/2025

The claimant presented a claim for unauthorised wage deductions. The respondent failed to submit a valid response on time. The tribunal determined the claim under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure and found the respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages, ordering payment of £7617.78.

Pawel Ignatowicz: [2026] EAT 74

The claimant was dismissed for Facebook posts relating to a workplace grievance. The Employment Tribunal found the dismissal unfair and ordered reinstatement with a 10% contributory fault reduction. The EAT upheld the unfair dismissal finding but found error in law regarding the assessment of contributory conduct and the appropriateness of ordering reinstatement, remitting the matter to the Employment Tribunal for reconsideration including the freedom of expression issue.

(1) RBL Law Ltd and Others: [2026] EAT 76

This is an EAT preliminary hearing determining whether the appellant (an employment solicitor) should be permitted to amend his notice of appeal and whether any amended grounds raise arguable errors of law. The appellant worked as a salaried partner at a law firm and claimed race discrimination (including allegations of a greeting based on racial stereotype and the CEO's use of a racial slur) and made protected disclosures concerning tribunal disclosure obligations. The appeal concerns procedural requirements for grounds of appeal and amendment in the EAT.

Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust: 6014701/2026

The claimant, dismissed on 24 April 2026, applied for interim relief under section 128 ERA pending determination of her claim for automatic unfair dismissal for making a protected disclosure. The tribunal refused the application for interim relief.

City St Georges, University of London: 6007023/2025

The claimant brought a claim against City St Georges, University of London. The claim was dismissed by the tribunal.

G4S Secure Solutions (UK) Ltd: 2306833/2023

The claimant's discrimination, harassment and victimisation claims were dismissed following a three-day hearing. The respondent applied for a costs order, arguing the claimant acted unreasonably in pursuing claims with no reasonable prospect of success after receiving a costs warning email four days before trial. The tribunal awarded £3,500 in costs against the claimant, having regard to his limited financial means (take-home pay £1,750 pcm, debts £90k), but finding his decision to proceed was objectively unreasonable.

Learning Matters Trust Ltd and ARAG Legal Expenses Company Ltd: 2502221/2023

The claimant brought claims against Learning Matters Trust Ltd and ARAG Legal Expenses Company Limited. The proceedings were stayed by consent pending settlement ratification through ACAS COT3.

Linde MH UK Ltd: 6022998/2025

The claimant brought complaints of unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal against Linde MH UK Limited. The tribunal heard the case on 20 and 21 May 2026 and dismissed both complaints as not well founded.