My EAT Cases
(Employment Appeal Tribunal)
I specialise in guiding clients through the Employment Appeal Tribunal process, and representing parties seeking to challenge or defend Employment Tribunal decisions
Most recent cases
The EAT dismissed the appeal, determining that the lay member's LinkedIn posts did not show apparent bias against the company
Misconduct-based dismissals can be justifiable even when the deciding manager hasn't directly overseen the disciplinary process
When assessing whether to allow a "just and equitable" extension of time for complaints pertaining to the Equality Act 2010, the absence of
All cases
When considering an application for reconsideration as per rule 70 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, the "interests of justice" test
Under section 100(1)(d) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, an employee must believe they face serious and imminent danger in the workplace
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruled in favour of the claimant, asserting he was indeed an employee, even though he was a registered Construction Industry Scheme (CIS) contractor
If evidence suggests possible discrimination, an employment tribunal must carefully consider the burden of proof, and not simply proceed directly to the primary reason for the alleged discriminatory act
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld the decision that the claimant, a doctor who refused to address transgender individuals by their chosen gender based on his Christian beliefs, had not been discriminated against
Application of Acas Code: A dismissal can be subject to the Acas Code if an employer believes there are issues related to misconduct or poor performance
The power to strike out a claim or response under rule 37(1)(b) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 can be invoked due to unreasonable conduct in proceedings
When determining if relief should be granted from an unless order per rule 38(2) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, actions that don't achieve material compliance should still be considered
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) determined that the original tribunal failed to adequately address the primary concerns of the claimant regarding her dismissal
The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the claimant's appeal against the initial decision of the Employment Judge (EJ). The main contention was
The Employment Tribunal (ET) made an error in its judgment concerning the Appellant's claims of victimisation and direct disability discrimination
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) dismissed the claimant's appeal, determining that the Employment Tribunal's (ET) conduct and conclusions were both fair and
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that the Employment Tribunal (ET) was correct in its judgment that the respondent's interim CEO had taken the definitive decision to
The EAT found that the Employment Judge had wrongly struck out the case. Whilst witnesses are not allowed to speak about their evidence when under oath, here
The EAT held that the Employment Judge had erred in failing to consider the Claimant’s personal injury
The EAT held that the employment tribunal’s finding as to contributory fault arose from a misapplication…
If an employer chose not to put forward any positive case as to the reason for the dismissal…
Where an employee had been dismissed on the ground of medical incapacity while his contractual entitlement…
Where employer and employee enter into what may be a protected conversations under s.111A Employment Rights Act…
The EAT held that whether an impairment was likely to last long-term or recur has to be asked…
The test of whether an employer is in breach of the implied term of trust and confidence is…
The EAT held that an employment tribunal is not, in effect, bound to intervene in order to ensure…
The EAT held that an employment tribunal is not, in effect, bound to intervene in order to ensure…
The EAT upheld the tribunal’s decision that the Claimant had not resigned, despite the fact that she…
The EAT upheld the tribunal’s decision that the Claimant had not resigned, despite the fact that she…
The EAT found that the employment judge erred in granting relief from the sanction of strike-out following…
The EAT held that the employment tribunal had been entitled to find that the employee had not suffered a…
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) dismissed the employers' appeal, upholding the original employment tribunal's decision to grant the claimant's application for
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) allowed the employee's appeal concerning his unfair dismissal claim, determining that the original employment tribunal had not adequately addressed
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld the claimant's unfair dismissal claim, asserting her termination was primarily due to her making protected disclosures. However
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld the employment tribunal's decision in favour of the employee on claims related to race victimisation
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld the original decision of the Employment Tribunal, rejecting the bus drivers' claim of unfair dismissal due to
An employer's appeal was allowed against a tribunal’s decision that they had failed to make reasonable adjustments for an administrative officer (the claimant) who was disabled due to
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld the decision of the Employment Tribunal, which dismissed Mr. Healey's claims for unfair and wrongful dismissal
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) allowed the employers' appeal, determining that an employment tribunal should have considered the post-termination conduct of
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) allowed the appeal by the local authority, determining that the claimants, who were part of the local authority's parks police service, were employed in
The Court of Appeal allowed the defendants' appeal. It was held that the claimant blacksmith's breach of contract concerning the design and workmanship of a metal porch was a breach of
The Employment Appeal Tribunal permitted the employee's appeal, determining that the employer's decision to halve the employee's pay constituted an anticipatory breach of contract
The Employment Appeal Tribunal's (EAT) decision was challenged by the employee, and the Court of Appeal granted permission for a further appeal, emphasising that both
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruled in favour of the employer, deciding that the default judgment issued by the employment tribunal should be set aside
