Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The EAT dismissed an appeal against rejection of section 15 disability discrimination and unfair dismissal claims, holding the tribunal used the right test and could rely on the agreed issues.
The Employment Tribunal's decision to dismiss the complaints was upheld as it was found that the adjustments sought by the appellant went beyond what was reasonable, the dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, and there was no error of law or perversity in the Tribunal's reasoning. The failure to provide a written statement of reasons for dismissal was not unreasonable as the reasons had already been communicated.
Source excerpt
The EAT dismissed an appeal against a refusal to extend time for race and religion-or-belief discrimination claims, and found no unfairness from a witness’s absence.
Fertre v Vale of White Horse District Council [2025] EWCA Civ 1057 (31 July 2025)
The Court of Appeal held that a French national with pre-settled status was not entitled to homelessness assistance under the Withdrawal Agreement.
The High Court struck out two Awodiya claims against the Ministry of Justice and dismissed their summary judgment application, holding the pleadings disclosed no reasonable grounds.
The EAT partly upheld an appeal in a disability harassment case, keeping findings about controller communications but remitting two manager meetings for reconsideration.
High Court appeal in a Cambridge PhD dispute: strike out of claims against individual employees was upheld, but breach of contract and duty of care particulars were reinstated.
The EAT held that the tribunal gave inadequate reasons on the claim about repeated informal requests for job re-evaluation, but adequate reasons on re-grading and backdating.
The Employment Tribunal erred in law by failing to make firm findings on whether the claimant’s migraines had a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his ability to carry out day-to-day activities, and by irrationally concluding that behavioural modification could prevent or reduce the effects. The only correct answer is that the claimant was disabled at the material times.
Source excerpt
The Tribunal was entitled to find that the claimant's delay was not reasonable, as his belief that his claim would not succeed was not reasonably held, Forstater-ET was not binding, and the BSB proceedings did not prevent him from acting. The Tribunal properly balanced prejudice and exercised its discretion to refuse an extension of time. There was no error of law or principle.
Source excerpt
Explore more
