F Ngole v Touchstone Leeds

F Ngole v Touchstone Leeds

The Employment Tribunal erred in law by failing to separately analyse each reason for the respondent's treatment of the claimant and to distinguish between treatment because of the protected belief itself (which cannot be justified) and treatment because of an objectionable manifestation (which may be justified)....

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Mr F Ngole; Respondent: Touchstone Leeds
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 February 2026
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment With Partial Remission to Employment Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; matter remitted to Employment Tribunal for further analysis.
Legal Topics
Direct Discrimination, Religion or Belief Discrimination, Freedom of Expression, Manifestation of Belief, Proportionality, Burden of Proof, Comparators, Justification, Lgbtqi+ Rights, Recruitment and Selection
Employment Law Equality and Discrimination Law Human Rights Direct Discrimination Religion or Belief Discrimination Freedom of Expression Manifestation of Belief Proportionality +5 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr F Ngole

Appellant

Touchstone Leeds

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment With Partial Remission to Employment Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in law in its analysis of direct discrimination because of religious belief
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's actions were because of the claimant's protected beliefs or a separable objectionable manifestation
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's actions were objectively justified under Bank Mellat proportionality principles

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal erred in law by failing to separately analyse each reason for the respondent's treatment of the claimant and to distinguish between treatment because of the protected belief itself (which cannot be justified) and treatment because of an objectionable manifestation (which may be justified). The Tribunal also failed to properly apply the proportionality assessment to each reason. The appeal is allowed in part and the matter is remitted for further analysis.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; matter remitted to Employment Tribunal for further analysis.

Orders

  • Remission to the same Employment Tribunal to separately analyse each reason for treatment and apply the correct legal test.
  • Employment Tribunal to determine the extent to which each reason contributed to the relevant decisions and whether treatment was because of the protected belief or a separable objectionable manifestation.