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 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