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
Tesco Stores Ltd v Element & Ors [2026] EWCA Civ 580 (12 May 2026)
Court of Appeal decision in an equal pay dispute about the meaning of “work” under the Equality Act 2010 and the proper scope of EAT appeals.
Court of Appeal in an equal pay appeal held that training materials could be primary evidence of job content in this highly regulated, generic workplace, but agreed facts could not be disregarded.
The EAT held that section 56(1)(b) of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 must be read restrictively in employment cases, so not every reference to intercepted communications requires closed proceedings.
The EAT dismissed an appeal against a £20,000 costs order, holding that the tribunal had correctly applied rule 76, given adequate reasons, and could proceed in the claimant’s absence.
The defendant has persistently issued claims and applications in the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal which are totally without merit, and there is a significant risk he will continue to do so if unrestrained. The High Court has jurisdiction to make a civil restraint order to protect tribunal processes. An Extended Civil Restraint Order, limited to new claims or appeals relating to job application processes, is the least restrictive and proportionate response.
Source excerpt
The Employment Tribunal erred in law by failing to apply the correct legal test for costs under rule 76, specifically by not considering whether the claimant knew or ought to have known his claims had no reasonable prospect of success, despite finding he subjectively believed his allegations. This omission constituted a clear error of law, requiring the costs decision to be set aside and remitted.
Source excerpt
Commerzbank AG v Ajao [2025] EWHC 2904 (KB) (07 November 2025)
The High Court found the defendant in contempt after concluding he knowingly made false sexual-harassment allegations and fabricated diary evidence in Employment Tribunal proceedings.
The Tribunal did not err in proceeding on the agreed list of issues regarding the section 15 complaint, as the claimant was legally represented and no application to amend was made. The Tribunal was entitled to find that the dismissal was for conduct reasons and not because of disability. The procedural irregularity of the same managers being involved in both investigation and disciplinary stages did not render the dismissal unfair, as an independent appeal was offered and all reasonable accommodations were made, but the claimant chose not to pursue the appeal. The end-to-end process was fair…
Source excerpt
The EAT held that the tribunal erred by not properly assessing whether a colleague’s sexual harassment occurred in the course of employment under section 109 EqA 2010.
The High Court refused permission to judicially review Employment Tribunal decisions, holding that an appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal was the proper and adequate route.
Explore more
