EAT & Court of Appeal Cases
A selection of Employment Appeal Tribunal and Court of Appeal cases in which Rad Kohanzad has acted as counsel, including more than 30+ reported decisions concerning dismissal, discrimination and whistleblowing.
Most recent cases
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) dismissed the appeal, holding that the Employment Tribunal had not erred by declining to make a finding of contributory fault where the available evidence did not support the necessary findings.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) allowed four of the seven grounds of appeal. It held that the Employment Tribunal had failed to consider whether the Council acquired relevant knowledge of the Claimant’s PTSD while disciplinary proceedings continued.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) dismissed the appeal, providing useful guidance on how disability-related vulnerability should inform the harassment test and when an employer may reasonably discuss performance concerns.
All cases
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) allowed four grounds of appeal, finding errors in the Employment Tribunal’s treatment of the disciplinary process and suspension, and its failure to identify the employer’s principal reason for dismissal.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the Employment Tribunal had wrongly approached the burden of proof on mitigation of loss and had not calculated the preparation time order in accordance with the applicable procedural rules.
The case concerned whether an Employment Tribunal had wrongly concluded that her existing claim did not include direct disability discrimination under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that the Employment Tribunal had erred by awarding no future loss of earnings and by failing properly to assess potential ongoing pension loss. The appeal was allowed and those issues were remitted to the same Employment Tribunal.
His Honour Judge James Tayler explained that these hearings are intended to assess briefly whether proposed grounds of appeal should proceed, not to provide an early opportunity to argue the full appeal.
The employer argued that the Employment Tribunal had failed to reduce the claimant’s past loss of earnings to reflect an alternative job opportunity she had not pursued.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that the claim had already been pleaded in Mr Manuel’s original Employment Tribunal claim form, so he did not need permission to amend it.
The appeal challenged the tribunal’s reasoning on alleged discriminatory treatment, the burden of proof under the Equality Act 2010, and whether a separate complaint under the Working Time Regulations 1998 had been raised.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) dismissed all three grounds, finding that the Tribunal had correctly applied the law and made positive findings about the reasons for the treatment in question.
The appeal examined whether the Employment Judge had properly considered her ignorance of the legal consequences when deciding whether dismissal was contrary to the interests of justice. The EAT dismissed the appeal, finding that the Judge had addressed the issue in her reconsideration decision.
An appeal concerning an alleged oral settlement agreement and a £10,100 Employment Tribunal costs order.
An appeal concerning the legal test for shifting the burden of proof in a direct race discrimination claim.
It held that the Employment Tribunal had given adequate reasons for its conclusions on suspension and the temporary move, and could not be criticised for failing to consider implied contractual terms that had not been argued before it.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) allowed the appeal, finding that fairness required a reasonable opportunity to obtain the evidence before the application was rejected. The matter was remitted to a different Employment Judge for reconsideration.
An appeal concerning the procedural fairness of striking out an Employment Tribunal claim without adequate notice.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal was entitled to decide the case on the agreed issues and to assess the fairness of the dismissal by considering the process as a whole.
An appeal concerning an Employment Tribunal's refusal to add an individual as a second respondent to an employment claim.
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
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 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 upheld the tribunal’s decision that the Claimant had not resigned, despite the fact that she…
The EAT held that where a tribunal is assessing whether an employer failed to make reasonable adjustments in…
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
