Latest tribunal judgments.

Mr J Truman v (1) SPL Powerlines UK Ltd (2) Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd (3) Express Medicals Ltd: [2026] EAT 54

Mr Truman, disabled with genetic haemochromatosis, was prescribed medical cannabis to manage chronic pain and failed a mandatory drug and alcohol test required for a safety-critical rail industry role, resulting in a five-year employment ban. He brought disability discrimination claims under the Equality Act 2010 against Powerlines, Network Rail and Express Medicals. The EAT allowed his appeal on the substantial disadvantage issue (s.20) against Network Rail and remitted for reconsideration, but dismissed his appeal on the competence standard issue (s.53(7)) and dismissed appeals against Powerlines and Express Medicals.

Ms Z Chowdhury v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care: [2026] EAT 69

The appellant sought to appeal case management orders made by Employment Judge Goodman during a hearing on 17-19 June 2024. The Registrar refused an extension of time, treating the appeal as nine days out of time. On rehearing, His Honour Judge James Tayler considered the relevant procedural rules regarding when the time period for appealing commences and whether the appellant was entitled to an extension.

Miss H Lau v 1) Dragon Cat Ltd T/A Dragon Cat Cafe 2) Mr Yohannes Miller 3) Ms Yen-Ting Li: [2026] EAT 65

This is an EAT decision on a procedural matter concerning whether to grant an extension of time for the respondents to serve their answer to an appeal. The respondents served their answer 16 days late, citing technical difficulties and an administrative error by the EAT in failing to serve the order on them. The court held that the strict principles applicable to appeals do not apply to extensions of time for answers, and the extension was granted on grounds of justice.

Miss A Ndow v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust: [2026] EAT 64

An EAT appeal concerning time limit issues in an unfair dismissal and disability discrimination case. The appellant was dismissed on 8 June 2022 and presented claims on 10 and 12 January 2023, almost four months out of time. The appellant argued the Tribunal erred by not considering her internal appeal process as a factor in the delay or as a potentially discriminatory act. The EAT dismissed the appeal on the basis that neither issue had been raised before the Employment Tribunal.

Mr L Tarbuc v Martello Piling Ltd: [2026] EAT 58

This is an Employment Appeal Tribunal case concerning the scope of section 111A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (protected conversations). The claimant appealed a preliminary hearing decision by Employment Judge Wright that excluded evidence of a pre-termination negotiation meeting from all of his claims. The EAT held that section 111A only applies to unfair dismissal claims and the judge had erred in excluding the evidence from the claimant's unlawful deduction from wages and part-time worker less favourable treatment claims. The EAT also held the judge had erred in her consideration of improper conduct by not considering matters in the round, including the claimant's complaints about being ambushed and denied the opportunity to bring a companion.

Mr D Foat v Department for Work and Pensions: [2026] EAT 61

The claimant succeeded in part in claims for disability discrimination and constructive unfair dismissal arising from harassment related to disability over 2016-2019. The Employment Tribunal awarded £373,936.69 compensation at remedy hearing. The EAT dismissed the claimant's four grounds of appeal challenging the ACAS uplift, PIP deduction, multiplier assessment, and omission of bonus claim, but allowed the respondent's cross-appeal regarding use of gross salary figures, substituting a lower net salary-based award of £108,833 for future loss of earnings.

Mr I Bickley v John Lewis PLC: [2026] EAT 59

The claimant legally changed his name by deed poll between obtaining an early conciliation certificate and presenting his ET1 claim form, resulting in different names appearing on the two documents. The Employment Tribunal rejected the claim under Rule 12(1)(e). The EAT allowed the appeal by consent, holding that the tribunal erred by failing to consider whether the claimant made an error in relation to a name under Rule 12(2A) and by failing to consider whether Rule 6 entitled it to waive the requirement.

QRS v London Borough of Tower Hamlets and others: [2026] EAT 60

The appellant appealed a Registrar's refusal to extend time for requesting a rule 3(10) hearing in respect of an EAT rule 3(7) letter. The appellant claimed she was unaware of the rule 3(7) letter and cited mental and physical ill health as excuses for the delay. The EAT found that while the appellant had health issues, the evidence did not support that her failure to act was caused by ill health. The appeal was dismissed as the underlying appeal had become academic because the substantive tribunal claims had been dismissed at a rule 47 hearing that the appellant had not appealed.

Mr A Ikeji v 1) Westminster City Council 2) Ms V Piquet: [2026] EAT 62

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.

Ms M Mulumba v 1) Partners Group (UK) Ltd 2) Partners Group (USA) Inc: [2026] EAT 53

This is an Employment Appeal Tribunal decision concerning case management errors in an employment tribunal. The appeal concerns whether the Employment Tribunal properly removed the July 2018 meeting issue from the list of issues and excluded parts of the claimant's reply witness statement. The EAT upheld the tribunal's case management decisions, finding no error in law.

Halley v Smith and another: [2026] EAT 56

This EAT appeal concerns John Halley, who was appointed as lead junior counsel to the Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry (SCAI) and brought claims for disability discrimination and victimisation. The ET dismissed the claims on jurisdiction grounds, holding that Halley was neither a public office holder under section 50(2)(b) of the Equality Act 2010 nor a 'worker' under employment law. The EAT upheld the ET's decision, confirming that counsel to a public inquiry operates as a self-employed advocate without the status necessary to bring discrimination claims under Part 5 of the Equality Act 2010.

Mr A Harper and Others v Alliance Healthcare Management Services Ltd: [2026] EAT 55

LGV drivers claimed unlawful deduction of wages for overtime, alleging they were contractually entitled to enhanced pay for hours exceeding their daily prescribed hours under the Staff Handbook. The Employment Tribunal found the Staff Handbook expressly excluded drivers and directed them to the Drivers' Handbook, which prescribed 48-hour weekly overtime thresholds. The EAT upheld this interpretation as correct and rejected the claimants' appeal.

Miss S Gillyon v LA's Community Care Ltd: 6018434/2025

The claimant brought complaints regarding unpaid wages following the closure of her employer at the end of February 2025. She had 11 years' service. The tribunal, proceeding by Rule 22 judgment without attendance of either party, found the claimant entitled to unpaid wages, holiday pay, redundancy payment, and notice pay.

Mr P Knowles v London North Eastern Railway Ltd: 6001613/2025

Mr Knowles claimed disability discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments arising from his fibromyalgia. His claim was presented on 16 January 2025, well outside the primary three-month time limit which expired 27 June 2024. The tribunal considered whether to extend the time limit on a just and equitable basis.

National Crime Agency v DP and Others: [2026] EAT 52

This Employment Appeal Tribunal judgment considers the proper interpretation of Section 56 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 in employment law proceedings. The case addresses whether open hearings can be held when claimants were employed in security-sensitive roles potentially involving lawfully intercepted communications, and how to balance principles of open justice against national security interests. The judgment applies a 'neither confirm nor deny' approach to the factual application of the IPA while deciding the point of principle in open judgment.

H Brown v Temple Grove Academy Trust: 2304639/2020

The claimant's claim against Temple Grove Academy Trust was struck out following the tribunal's warning on 31 January 2026 that it was considering striking out the claim under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 on the basis that it had not been actively pursued. The claimant failed to respond to the tribunal's letter giving an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out or to request a hearing, and the claim was therefore struck out.

S Best v Kent County Council: 2304245/2020

The claimant's claim against Kent County Council was struck out under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 because it had not been actively pursued. The Tribunal sent a warning letter on 14 March 2026 giving the claimant an opportunity to respond, but the claimant did not reply.

W Cullen v Kent County Council: 2304246/2020

The claimant's claim against Kent County Council was struck out under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The Tribunal had written to the claimant on 14 March 2026 warning of its intention to strike out the claim due to lack of active pursuit, and the claimant failed to respond to the opportunity to explain or request a hearing.

Mr P Wendolowski v DHL E-Commerce UK Ltd and Others: 1600421/2025

Mr Wendolowski brought claims of unfair dismissal, unlawful deduction from wages, breach of contract, unpaid holiday pay, direct race discrimination and race-related harassment against DHL E-Commerce UK Ltd and others. All claims were dismissed on time limit grounds: the unfair dismissal and contractual claims were out of time and it was reasonably practicable to present them within the deadline; the discrimination and harassment claims were out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend the time limit.

Miss M Szawica v B Braun Sterilog Ltd and Synergy Health (UK) Ltd T/a Steris Instrument Processing: 6014831/2024

The claimant's claim against the first respondent (B Braun Sterilog Ltd) was dismissed by consent following a transfer of the claimant's employment to the second respondent (Synergy Health (UK) Ltd t/a Steris Instrument Processing). The second respondent accepted liability for the claim if it succeeds.

Mrs J Ward v Sternberg Reed LLP: 3205464/2022

Mrs Ward, a solicitor dismissed from her role in the Clinical Negligence Department in September 2022, brought claims including unfair dismissal, direct race discrimination, victimisation, disability discrimination, and indirect sex discrimination. At a preliminary hearing, the employment judge struck out the disability-related claims and the indirect sex discrimination/part-time workers discrimination claims on the basis that they had no reasonable prospect of success.

D Gooch v C Wood & Son (Luton) Ltd: 6037274/2025

The claimant claimed a right to a redundancy payment. The tribunal found the claimant had been employed for less than two years, which is below the statutory minimum qualifying period under section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claim was struck out.

K Hall v Synergy Associates Ltd: 6004200/2025

The claimant, Karl Hall, brought claims for unfair dismissal, breach of contract in relation to notice pay, and unlawful deductions from wages against Synergy Associates Ltd. The tribunal found that all claims were submitted out of time and accordingly had no jurisdiction to hear them.

Mr N Mills v Stephensons: 6020243/2024

Mr Mills claimed unfair dismissal, holiday pay and breach of contract against Stephensons, a law firm. The tribunal found that his employment terminated on 14 February 2022 when he signed a redundancy agreement and thereafter entered into a Consultancy Agreement, making him self-employed rather than an employee. The claims were dismissed as the unfair dismissal and notice pay claims were presented out of time and the holiday pay claim was not well-founded.

Ms T Nembhard v Royal Borough of Greenwich: 6017834/2024

The claimant applied for reconsideration of a preliminary hearing judgment on disability status, arguing that the judge decided the case without access to an MRI scan from 8 January 2020 which the NHS trust had refused to disclose. The tribunal refused the reconsideration application, confirming the earlier decision on the basis that reconsideration applications are limited exceptions to finality and should not be used to re-litigate matters already decided.

Mr T Adeleye v Milestone Global Resources Ltd: 6046182/2025

The claimant brought claims relating to unpaid wages and accrued holiday pay. The respondent paid all sums owed to the claimant during the proceedings. The tribunal dismissed all claims as there were no further sums to compensate.

Mr C Rodrigues v The London Borough of Lambeth: 6019181/2024

This is a reconsideration judgment concerning Mr Rodrigues' application to reconsider an earlier Employment Tribunal decision regarding his sick pay and holiday pay entitlements against The London Borough of Lambeth. The claimant sought reconsideration on grounds that the tribunal misconstrued sick pay entitlement provisions and failed to award holiday pay, but the tribunal refused the application as it did not meet the threshold for reconsideration in the interests of justice.

J Gallaway v Caretech Foundation (Cambian group): 6048630/2025

The claimant complained of unfair dismissal against Caretech Foundation (Cambian group). The tribunal struck out the complaint because the claimant had less than two years of service, failing to meet the statutory requirement under Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

Ms A Brooker v The Nail and Beauty Zone Ltd: 2302916/2024

The tribunal considered whether to allow the respondent to amend its reply to add a statutory defence of legitimate aim and proportionality in an indirect discrimination claim, nearly 18 months after being ordered to do so by Employment Judge Evans. The tribunal rejected the amendment application, finding the respondent had failed to comply with the mandatory order through its own default and that allowing the amendment at such a late stage would cause significant prejudice to the claimant. The tribunal also considered preliminary issues regarding ACAS early conciliation scope and redaction of medical documents.

M Matthieu v Luton Junior School and Medway Council: 2305379/2020

The claimant's claim was struck out under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 for failure to actively pursue the claim. The tribunal issued a warning letter on 21 February 2026 giving the claimant an opportunity to respond, but the claimant did not reply.

C Brenchley v Kingfisher Community Academy Primary: 2305339/2020

The claimant's claim against Kingfisher Community Academy Primary was struck out under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 for failure to actively pursue the claim. The Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to respond to a warning letter dated 21 February 2026, but the claimant did not reply.

Mr E Otite v Serco Ltd: 6011386/2024

The claimant brought complaints against Serco Limited which were heard over three days in April 2026. The tribunal found the claimant's complaints were not well founded and dismissed them.

Ms H L Mitchell v Akari Care Ltd: 2500989/2025

Ms H L Mitchell claimed unfair dismissal against Akari Care Limited. The tribunal heard the case on 10 April 2026 at Newcastle Employment Tribunal. The claim was dismissed as not well founded.

A-R Sahih El‑Islam Tayar v London & Quadrant Housing Trust: 6039494/2025

The claimant, representing himself, brought a claim of unfair dismissal against London & Quadrant Housing Trust. The tribunal heard evidence on 9 and 10 April 2026. The claim was dismissed as not well founded.

Mr E Amoo v London Underground Ltd and Ms S Anderson: 6039650/2025

Mr E Amoo brought a claim for unfair dismissal against London Underground Limited and Ms S Anderson, alleging constructive dismissal. The tribunal found that the claimant was not constructively dismissed and dismissed the claim. Ms S Anderson was removed as a respondent as she was not the claimant's employer.

Mr M Aslam v John Lewis plc: 6009627/2025

Mr Munir Aslam claimed unfair dismissal against John Lewis plc. The tribunal found the dismissal was unfair but reduced awards by 25% for the claimant's contributory conduct, while increasing the compensatory award by 10% for the respondent's failure to comply with the ACAS Code of Disciplinary Procedures. The claimant was awarded £6,825 basic award and £18,719.55 compensatory award.

Mr M Fiaz v Home Office: 1305012/2025

The claimant sought to amend his claim form to add a disability discrimination complaint approximately 30 months after the last alleged incident and on the eve of the final hearing. The tribunal refused to extend time, finding that the claimant must have been aware of the OHS report in 2021 confirming his thyroid condition qualified as a disability under the Equality Act 2010, and that he had not acted promptly or provided good reason for the substantial delay.

Mr R Carthy v Ms J Milner T/a Bryngwyn Stallions: 1601864/2025

The claimant brought claims of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, discrimination under sections 13, 15, and 26 of the Equality Act 2010, and victimisation under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found all claims were brought outside the statutory time limits and that it was reasonably practicable to have brought the unfair and wrongful dismissal claims in time, and that it was not just and equitable to extend time for the discrimination and victimisation claims.

Miss A Khan v The Bronze Spoon Ltd: 3306347/2024

Miss A Khan, a Muslim employee, claimed direct discrimination on grounds of religion, race and age, and automatic unfair dismissal following her dismissal from The Bronze Spoon Ltd. The tribunal found all discrimination and unfair dismissal claims not well-founded, but upheld her claim for breach of contract in relation to notice pay, awarding £223 representing one week's notice pay.

A Byrne v Alliance Property Holdings: 6012688/2025

The claimant's employment claim against Alliance Property Holdings was struck out under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The Tribunal found that the claimant had failed to comply with a previous Order and had not actively pursued the claim, and the claimant did not respond to a warning letter or request a hearing to explain why the claim should not be struck out.