Latest tribunal judgments.

University of Edinburgh: [2026] EAT 96

An EAT appeal concerning the appropriate quantum of an ACAS uplift and grossing up of compensation in a complex unfair dismissal and disability discrimination case. The appellant challenged the tribunal's application of a 2.5% ACAS uplift and its refusal to gross up certain award elements for tax. The EAT upheld the tribunal's decisions, finding that the ACAS uplift issue was remitted by necessary implication and the tribunal properly applied the law in adopting a pragmatic approach to grossing up given uncertainty about tax treatment.

Royal Mail Group Ltd: [2026] EAT 93

The claimant appealed the Employment Tribunal's dismissal of his claim under section 152 TULR(C)A 1992. He had been dismissed for gross misconduct after posting two messages in a CWU WhatsApp group during an industrial dispute, including one stating 'Fuck Royal Mail' and another referencing violence. The ET concluded neither message amounted to participation in trade union activities. The EAT dismissed the appeal, holding the Tribunal correctly approached the characterisation question as an evaluative exercise of fact and degree, and was entitled to conclude the posts were not properly characterised as participation in trade union activities.

Renfrewshire Council: [2026] EAT 95

This is an Employment Appeal Tribunal decision in a victimisation claim under the Equality Act 2010. The claimant, employed by Renfrewshire Council, assisted a disabled client with moving accommodation as a favour, which he claimed was a protected act. After a complaint was made regarding the support provided, the claimant was moved to alternative duties. The EAT held that while the ET erred in its analysis of whether a protected act occurred, the ET did not err on causation, as the detriment resulted from the complaint itself rather than the protected act. The appeal was refused on the basis that both the protected act and causation issues were inextricably linked and both were required to succeed.

(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.

O’Loughlin Commercials Ltd: 3304564/2025

The claimant, an HGV driver, claimed unfair dismissal following an argument with transport manager Tony Murphy over working hours on 27 February 2025, during which he was told he was sacked. The tribunal found the claimant was not dismissed unfairly, dismissing his claim. The judgment addresses issues of continuous employment, dismissal versus resignation, procedural compliance, and the fairness of the dismissal within the range of reasonable responses.

Ace 24 Healthcare: 6012145/2026

The claimant applied for interim relief in proceedings against Ace 24 Healthcare. The tribunal refused the application for interim relief.

Forward (Wales) Ltd: 6017288/2025

The claimant brought claims of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability, unfavourable treatment arising from disability, and unfair dismissal against Forward (Wales) Limited. The tribunal dismissed the reasonable adjustments complaint but found the disability-related treatment complaint and unfair dismissal claim well-founded.

Relltek Ltd: 6009880/2024

The claimant was employed as Professional Services Director by Relltek Limited, an IT services company, from February 2022 to May 2024, when he was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct. The claimant disputed the allegations and argued the dismissal was unfair due to procedural defects, including an allegedly biased investigator and fabricated meeting minutes. The tribunal dismissed all claims for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and unlawful deduction of wages.

Oatlands Academy CIC: 6039843/2025

The claimant brought claims for unlawful wage deductions, breach of contract regarding dismissal notice, and unpaid holiday entitlement. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the tribunal determined the claim under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £4,760.31 in total comprising £2,775.07 for wage deductions, £640.40 for breach of contract damages, and £1,344.84 for unpaid holiday.

LHR Airports Ltd: 3300526/2024

The claimant, a Muslim Security Officer of Palestinian affiliation, brought claims of direct discrimination, harassment, and victimisation arising from her employment at LHR Airports Ltd following an incident involving her Palestinian flag badge in November 2023. The tribunal found all claims not well-founded, concluding that the claimant's deep Palestinian affiliation coloured her interpretation of events and that she was not a reliable recaller of facts.

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.

Portofino London Ltd: 6001234/2026

The claimant brought a claim for unlawful wage deductions. The respondent failed to present a response, resulting in Rule 22(3) applying. The tribunal found the claim well-founded and ordered the respondent to pay £43 net and £2,500 gross in respect of unauthorised wage deductions.

Lantain Ltd and A G Sandry: 2300946/2026

The claimant applied for interim relief following his resignation on 10 May 2026, claiming constructive unfair dismissal and whistleblowing detriments after making protected disclosures about breaches of national minimum wage, health and safety, and working time regulations between February and May 2026. Employment Judge Sudra refused the application, finding that based on the evidence available, the tribunal could not conclude the claimant had a pretty good chance of success in the substantive claim, as the factual dispute between the parties (whether the alleged detriments were caused by the protected disclosures or by business efficacy reasons) was too complex to assess at the interim relief stage.

Manger Moi Ltd: 2311750/2024

The claimant brought complaints of unauthorised wage deductions and indirect sex discrimination against the respondent. The tribunal found the wage deduction complaint well-founded and awarded £60 for the deducted sum plus £480 under section 38 Employment Act 2002 for breach of duty to provide written employment particulars. The indirect sex discrimination complaint was dismissed.

Jasmin Thai Ltd: 2501497/2025

The claimant claimed against Jasmin Thai Ltd for unlawful wage deductions, breach of contract dismissal, redundancy entitlement, unpaid holiday, and failure to provide pay statements. The respondent failed to submit a valid response on time, and the tribunal determined the claim under Rule 22, finding in favour of the claimant on all monetary claims totalling £3,445.04.

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.

Brickowner Ltd: 6030617/2025

The claimant brought claims for unauthorised deductions from wages and redundancy payment against Brickowner Limited. The tribunal found the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and bonus in May and June 2025, and was entitled to a redundancy payment. The respondent was ordered to pay £14,203.83 in total.

IAG Cargo Ltd: 3306475/2024 and 6044468/2025: 3306475/2024

This is a costs judgment following an earlier hearing. The claimant's application for costs is allowed and the respondent is ordered to pay the claimant £3,635. The reasons were given orally at the hearing on 18 February 2026.

Kanki Turkish Meze and Cocktail Bar Ltd: 6025147/2025

The claimant claimed discrimination and unlawful wage deduction against his employer. The claimant failed to attend the hearing on 28 May 2026, having emailed on 21 May 2026 stating he could not attend due to his mother's critical illness abroad, but failed to comply with procedural requirements to copy the respondent on his postponement request. The tribunal dismissed the claims under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, finding the claimant was not intent on pursuing his claims.

Willerby Holiday Homes Ltd: 6041506/2025

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.

Driven Personnel Ltd: 6009338/2025

The claimant applied for reconsideration of a judgment concerning unpaid holiday pay, seeking to amend it to include a finding that he was an employee rather than a worker. The tribunal refused the application as it was made significantly out of time and, in any event, employment status was never an issue raised in the original claim or addressed in the judgment.

Ormiston Academies Trust and Others: 2402708/2020 and Others: 2402708/2020

The claims brought by Julie Crellin, Ellis Greenwood, and Jayne Thompson against Ormiston Academies Trust and related academies were struck out under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The Tribunal found the claims had not been actively pursued, and after warning the claimants and giving them an opportunity to respond, which they failed to do, the Tribunal struck out the claims.

The Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis: 2306290/2024

This is a preliminary hearing in a disability discrimination case brought by a police officer against the Metropolitan Police. The tribunal determined that the claimant was disabled for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 from 6 January 2023. The tribunal refused the claimant's application to amend his Particulars of Claim to add five further particulars, with reasons for the disability determination given orally at the hearing.

Home Office: 6020810/2025

The claimant brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against the Home Office. The tribunal heard evidence over three days in May 2026. The claimant's unfair dismissal complaint was found to be not well-founded and dismissed.

Stark Technical Services Ltd and Others: 6041427/2025

The claimant withdrew her sex discrimination claim against respondent Carl Dixon. The tribunal dismissed the whistleblowing detriment claims as no particulars of the claim were provided in the original claim form and an application to amend was refused on 27 May 2026.

Elissa Motors Ltd (T/a Budgen Motors): 1303178/2025

The claimant brought a claim of direct discrimination against Elissa Motors Limited (t/a Budgen Motors) on the grounds of her protected characteristic of marriage. The tribunal heard evidence on 26th and 27th May 2025 and found the claim was not well founded, dismissing it.