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 Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed an appeal against a finding of unfair dismissal, upholding the tribunal’s approach to the ACAS Code, comparators, delay, and alleged procedural unfairness.
The EAT held that the tribunal erred in part on direct religion or belief discrimination and remitted the case for further analysis of the reasons for treatment.
Leicester City Council v Parmar [2025] EWCA Civ 952 (22 July 2025)
The Court of Appeal dismissed Leicester City Council’s appeal, upholding findings that a disciplinary investigation and related steps amounted to race discrimination against Bindu Parmar.
The Court of Appeal dismissed Leicester City Council’s appeal, upholding findings that its disciplinary action against Mrs Parmar amounted to direct race discrimination.
The EAT dismissed an appeal in a direct race discrimination case, holding that the ET was entitled to find no burden shift under section 136 and to refuse late comparator evidence.
The EAT upheld findings of direct disability discrimination and constructive dismissal, holding the comparator was proper and the claimant had not affirmed her contract.
EAT appeal on part-time worker detriment claim dismissed; the tribunal’s findings did not show overtime cancellation was caused by part-time status, and no comparable full-time worker was established.
The Employment Tribunal made findings of fact that were open to it, correctly applied the relevant legal principles, and provided Meek-compliant reasons. No error of law was disclosed in any of the grounds of appeal, and the appeal was dismissed.
Source excerpt
The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed an appeal alleging direct race discrimination over settled-status letters and disciplinary action, holding the claims were out of time and not race-based.
The Employment Tribunal erred in law by failing to consider specific evidential comparators in its analysis of direct sex discrimination claims, rendering its conclusions on those issues unsafe. The matter is remitted to the same Tribunal to reconsider those claims in light of the comparators and evidence already before it.
Source excerpt
Explore more
