England and Wales Case Law

Guy’s & St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust v Nizam Mamode

The Employment Judge erred in law by failing to adequately apply the correct legal test for repudiatory breach, providing insufficient reasoning, and expanding the issues beyond those pleaded. The flawed analysis rendered the judgment unsafe and necessitated remittal to a different Employment Judge.

Source excerpt

• Constructive unfair dismissal
• Breach of contract
• Implied term of mutual trust and confidence
• Disciplinary procedures
• Grievance procedures

Read case analysis

Darron Foat v Department of Work and Pensions

The EAT dismissed the appeal on ACAS uplift, PIP deduction, contingencies, and bonus, but allowed the cross-appeal on the future loss multiplicand.

• Disability discrimination
• Constructive unfair dismissal
• Compensation assessment
• Deduction of state benefits
• Acas code uplift
• Disability-discrimination

Read case analysis

Wirral University Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v Moriarty

The EAT dismissed an employer’s appeal against refusal to strike out particulars as Henderson abuse, holding the tribunal applied the correct broad-based test.

• Constructive unfair dismissal
• Abuse of process
• Res judicata
• Case management
• Jurisdiction
• Abuse-of-process

Read case analysis

KJ v British Council

The EAT allowed the claimant’s appeal against a 35% Chagger deduction, dismissed the employer’s cross-appeal on limitation, and adjourned disposal pending a remedies appeal.

• Sex discrimination
• Harassment
• Constructive unfair dismissal
• Limitation
• Compensation assessment
• Sex-discrimination

Read case analysis

Bazgha Anwar v Boots Management Services Ltd

The Employment Judge erred in law by dismissing the Appellant’s claim of automatic unfair dismissal at a private Preliminary Hearing without prior warning, based on an incorrect view that claims of detriment and automatic unfair dismissal were legally inconsistent, and by treating the Appellant as having withdrawn her claim when she was unfairly pressured to choose between claims. This amounted to procedural unfairness and breach of Employment Tribunal Rules.

Source excerpt

• Automatic unfair dismissal
• Constructive unfair dismissal
• Protected disclosure
• Case management
• Strike-out procedure

Read case analysis

Kingdom of Spain v Lorenzo

Kingdom of Spain v Lorenzo [2024] EWCA Civ 1602 (20 December 2024)

The Court of Appeal dismissed Spain’s appeal against a refusal of state and diplomatic immunity in an employment discrimination claim by a locally recruited embassy worker.

• State immunity
• Diplomatic immunity
• Constructive unfair dismissal
• Racial discrimination
• Harassment
• Equality act 2010

Read case analysis

E Macfarlane v Commissioners of Police of the Metropolis

The Employment Judge did not err in law by refusing the amendment; he was entitled to place weight on the claimant's clarification at the earlier hearing, to find the amendment introduced new factual and legal issues, and to assess the balance of hardship in favour of the respondent given the low prospects of success and time limits.

Source excerpt

• Constructive unfair dismissal
• Protected disclosure
• Whistleblowing
• Amendment of pleadings
• Case management
• Time limits

Read case analysis

The No 8 Partnership v Maxine Simmons

The Employment Tribunal erred in law and procedure by constructing hypothetical comparators without input from the parties, failed to ensure a like-for-like comparison as required by section 23 Equality Act 2010, and made a perverse finding of discrimination unsupported by its own factual findings. The Tribunal also failed to apply the correct legal test and provide adequate reasoning for breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. Accordingly, the findings of direct associative disability discrimination and constructive unfair dismissal could not stand.

Source excerpt

• Constructive unfair dismissal
• Associative disability discrimination
• Direct discrimination
• Employment rights
• Procedural fairness

Read case analysis

V Barnard v Hampshire and Isle of Wight Fire and Rescue Authority

The tribunal was entitled to find that the differences in pay and conditions between the claimant and her comparators were due to material factors, including the requirement for Grey Book employees to maintain operational competence and be available for operational duties, and that these were proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims. The fact that some comparators may not have fully complied with operational requirements did not undermine the genuineness of the employer's requirements. The experiment at HOST level did not demonstrate that levelling up terms for the claimant would not…

Source excerpt

• Equal pay
• Indirect discrimination
• Constructive unfair dismissal
• Material factor defence
• Objective justification

Read case analysis

Edenbeck Limited v E Stevenson

The tribunal did not err in its remedy award for discrimination, as it was entitled to find the conduct amounted to direct sex discrimination and to assess the impact accordingly. However, the tribunal erred in its approach to costs by failing to properly consider and explain whether, having found unreasonable conduct, it should award all, some, or none of the claimant's costs, and by treating certain aspects of the respondent's conduct (such as cross-examination and the unsigned witness statement) as unreasonable without sufficient reasoning.

Source excerpt

• Sex discrimination
• Disability discrimination
• Constructive unfair dismissal
• Costs in employment tribunal
• Remedies for discrimination

Read case analysis