[2026] EAT 56Appeal partly allowedRespondent won

Smith and another

17 April 2026·Employment Appeal Tribunal·England & Wales·The Honourable Lord Colbeck

Respondent

Smith and another

All cases →

Decision date

17 April 2026

Tribunal

Employment Appeal Tribunal

Jurisdiction

England & Wales

Judge

The Honourable Lord Colbeck

Case Summary

This EAT appeal concerns John the claimant, 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 the claimant 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.

Why this outcome?

Jurisdictional bar

The EAT upheld the Employment Tribunal's dismissal because counsel to a public inquiry, although appointed to the SCAI, was not holder of a public office within section 50(2)(b) of the Equality Act 2010 (which requires appointment to an office made on recommendation or with approval of a member of the executive). The appellant also failed to meet the definition of 'worker' because he was a self-employed advocate providing professional services to a client without the necessary subordination relationship, meaning he fell outside the jurisdictional scope of Part 5 of the Equality Act 2010 discrimination protections.

Claim Types

Related claim guides

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

See disability discrimination compensation data

Key Issues

  • Whether counsel to a public inquiry established under the Inquiries Act 2005 is the holder of a public office within section 50(2)(b) of the Equality Act 2010
  • Whether counsel to a public inquiry is a 'worker' within section 230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
  • Whether the Employment Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims of disability discrimination and victimisation
  • Whether the appellant was a self-employed advocate or held employment status entitling him to discrimination protections
  • Procedural issue: whether the appellant agreed to determination by written submissions without further evidence

Original published judgment

The full source document is available from the official publication page.

Something doesn't look right?

Report a wrong claim type, outcome, summary, or award.