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 refused appeals against a costs order and reconsideration decision after finding the claimant knowingly gave untrue information about his employment status.
The EAT allowed an appeal in a victimisation case, holding that the tribunal failed to answer the remitted causation question and remitted the matter again.
The Employment Tribunal upheld two race-harassment complaints by Ms R Tapping and dismissed the remainder of her discrimination and victimisation claims.
The Tribunal erred in law by concluding that the s.27(1)(b) victimisation claim was outside the pleaded case; the distinction between the pleaded claim and the claim upheld was narrow, both arose from the same facts, and the Respondent was not prejudiced. The interests of justice required the initial judgment to stand.
Source excerpt
The Employment Tribunal erred by applying too narrow a definition of protected acts and failing to analyse the context in which the claimant's complaints were made, particularly given her status as the only black employee and the nature of the grievance; the appeal is upheld and the case remitted for reconsideration.
Source excerpt
The appeal was dismissed because the tribunal was entitled to find, on the evidence, that the employer (FGW) subjected the claimant to detriments on the ground of protected disclosures and acts, through a prejudicial management culture perpetuated by HR (notably Ms Czechowicz), even though individual managers were not personally liable. The tribunal's findings on causation, reasoning, and procedural fairness were sound and not flawed by error of law.
Source excerpt
The Employment Tribunal failed to adequately explain its findings regarding the claimant's knowledge of the facts supporting her claims and did not properly distinguish between knowledge of non-appointment and knowledge of discriminatory reasons. The ET's reasoning was insufficient to justify refusal to extend time or strike out the race discrimination claim. The appeal is dismissed and the claims remitted for reconsideration.
Source excerpt
The Tribunal failed to provide clear and sufficient reasons for its decision, particularly in relation to whether the protected acts played any material or operative part in the dismissal. The Tribunal did not adequately explain the separability of reasons or address why evidence supporting the claimant's case was rejected. As a result, the reasons were not Meek compliant and the appeal is allowed.
Source excerpt
The Employment Appeal Tribunal held the tribunal had failed to consider whether earlier factual allegations supported a victimisation amendment, and remitted the issue.
The EAT partly allowed appeals in a sex discrimination and victimisation case, remitting issues on protected acts, causation, and one contested meeting, while upholding findings on harassment and discrimination.
Explore more
