Latest tribunal judgments.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Da’aro Youth Project: 6003889/2024 and 6021631/2024: 6003889/2024

The claimant, aged 73, brought claims against Da'aro Youth Project for direct age discrimination, harassment related to age, victimisation, constructive unfair dismissal, constructive discriminatory dismissal, wrongful dismissal and failure to provide a written statement of terms. The tribunal found all complaints failed and were dismissed, with no compensation awarded. The respondent's applications for costs and wasted costs were dismissed upon withdrawal.

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.

Dawat-E-Islami: 6025015/2025

The claimant, a head teacher, was dismissed for making racial and discriminatory comments to students on 2 May 2025. The tribunal found the dismissal was fair, holding that the respondent had a genuine belief in the misconduct, reasonable grounds for that belief, conducted a reasonable investigation, and that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses for gross misconduct by a head teacher in an Islamic school. Both claims (unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal) were dismissed.

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.

Innovate Energy Solutions Ltd: 6022866/2025

The claimant brought claims for breach of contract and unauthorised deduction from wages against Innovate Energy Solutions Limited. The tribunal found that the respondent breached the claimant's contract of employment and awarded damages of £18,919.58, while dismissing the complaint regarding unauthorised deduction from wages.

TSB Bank plc: 3200075/2025

The claimant brought claims for wrongful dismissal/breach of contract (notice pay) and unfair dismissal against TSB Bank PLC. The wrongful dismissal complaint was withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed under Rule 51, while the unfair dismissal complaint was found not to be well-founded and dismissed.

Age UK East London: 6040145/2025

The claimant brought a claim of constructive dismissal against Age UK East London. The tribunal found the claim of constructive dismissal not well-founded and determined that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed.

SNE Care Services Ltd: 6015726/2024

The claimant brought claims of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and direct race discrimination against SNE Care Services Limited. The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim due to lack of qualifying service, dismissed the wrongful dismissal claim as out of time, and dismissed the race discrimination claim as out of time with no just and equitable extension.

HG Lettings Ltd: 6003310/2024

The claimant brought complaints of direct race discrimination and harassment related to race against HG Lettings Limited. The tribunal found both complaints were not well-founded and dismissed them.

Thurrock Council: 6012142/2024

The claimant brought complaints against Thurrock Council. The tribunal heard the case over four days in May 2026. All of the claimant's complaints were found to be not well founded and were dismissed.

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.

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.

Department for Work and Pensions: 2500990/2024

The claimant, employed by the Department for Work and Pensions, claimed she was constructively dismissed unfairly and subjected to disability-related harassment and discrimination. The tribunal found that the claimant had affirmed her contract of employment after May 2023, and therefore could not rely on earlier alleged breaches to establish constructive dismissal. The claims of unfair dismissal were dismissed as not well founded, and the Equality Act 2010 claims were struck out as being outside the three-month time limit with no just and equitable basis for extension.

Bright Young Futures Ltd: 3202048/2024

The claimant brought claims for automatic unfair dismissal, detriment due to protected disclosure (whistleblowing), and wrongful dismissal against Bright Young Futures Ltd. The tribunal found all three claims unsuccessful and dismissed them.

The Crown Prosecution Service: 6020207/2025

The claimant brought claims against The Crown Prosecution Service for indirect disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, and failure to make reasonable adjustments. The tribunal heard evidence over five days and found all three claims were not well-founded.

Rolls Royce plc: 6006422/2024

The claimant claimed unfair dismissal against Rolls Royce Plc. The case was heard over three days in May 2026 before Employment Judge Shepherd. The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim was not well-founded and dismissed it.

Butchers Pet Care Ltd: 3315335/2023

The claimant brought claims for automatic unfair dismissal due to pregnancy and pregnancy discrimination against her employer, Butchers Pet Care Ltd. The tribunal dismissed both claims as they did not succeed. Although the tribunal found unreasonable conduct by the claimant in bringing and continuing the claims, no order for costs was made.

EE Ltd: 6003170/2025

The claimant brought claims of harassment related to his race against EE Limited, alleging four separate incidents of inappropriate comments made by his former Team Leader between April and September 2024. The tribunal dismissed all four allegations, finding that the claims were presented out of time and that it would not be just and equitable to extend the time limit, and in any event, the claims failed on their merits.

National Highways Ltd: [2026] EAT 75

The claimant appealed the employment tribunal's dismissal of complaints under the Fixed-Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002 relating to not being offered HRBP training while on a fixed-term contract. The EAT held the tribunal erred in requiring a discrete finding of detriment when less favourable treatment regarding training opportunity is established, but upheld the tribunal's findings that the treatment was objectively justified on cost and business grounds and the complaint was out of time.

London Borough of Southwark: 6010809/2024

The claimant brought claims of unfair dismissal and direct race discrimination against London Borough of Southwark. The tribunal heard evidence on 5, 6 and 7 May 2026. Both claims were dismissed as not well-founded.

Norfolk County Council: 6012287/2025

The claimant brought multiple claims against Norfolk County Council including notice pay, holiday pay, unlawful deduction from wages, sex discrimination, unfair dismissal, and redundancy payment. The tribunal dismissed or struck out all claims, finding that notice pay, holiday pay, and unlawful deduction claims were outside the time limit and it was reasonably practicable to have presented them on time; the sex discrimination claim was outside the time limit and it was not just and equitable to extend it; and the unfair dismissal and redundancy claims were struck out because the claimant had less than two years service and therefore lacked the qualifying period required by statute.

Nuclear Waste Services Ltd: 3309679/2023 and 3300250/2025: 3309679/2023

The claimant brought claims of discrimination on grounds of age, sex, disability, race and religion against Nuclear Waste Services Limited. The Respondent had conceded the Claimant was disabled from January 2023 due to Long COVID. The Tribunal heard evidence over multiple days in April 2026 and found all discrimination, harassment and victimisation complaints failed and were dismissed, though the Respondent was found to be in breach of its duty to provide an updated statement of employment particulars, attracting no remedy.

HM Revenue & Customs: 6032668/2025

The claimant brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against His Majesty's Revenue & Customs. The tribunal heard the case on 18 May 2026 at Newcastle. The tribunal found the complaint of unfair dismissal was not well-founded and dismissed it.

Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust: 3200142/2023

The claimant complained of disability discrimination and unfair dismissal following her termination by Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust. The claimant, a Healthcare Assistant with dyslexia, dyspraxia, anxiety, depression, and osteoarthritis, was dismissed after an extensive redeployment process and capability assessment. The Tribunal dismissed all discrimination complaints but upheld the unfair dismissal claim, finding the appeal process was procedurally unfair, and awarded a basic award with an 80% Polkey reduction to the compensatory award.

Royal Mail Group Ltd: [2026] EAT 87

The EAT dismissed the claimant's appeal against an Employment Tribunal decision that electronic payslips satisfy section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Tribunal held that the statutory requirement to 'give' an itemised payslip does not require physical delivery but can be satisfied by electronic access, provided the information is accessible and intelligible. On the facts, Royal Mail's digital-only system met this requirement as the claimant had free access to his payslips via multiple means but chose not to use them.

Birmingham City Council: 1304212/2024 and Others: 1304212/2024

Three claimants (two women and one man) brought equal pay claims comparing their work as Business Advisers with Account Managers at the Growth Hub operated by Birmingham City Council. The tribunal found the claimants were not employed on work equal to that of their opposite-sex comparators and dismissed all claims on the substantive 'like work' ground. Additionally, the tribunal determined that claims relating to periods before certain dates would fail on jurisdictional and temporal grounds including TUPE transfer dates and the six-year arrears limitation period.