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 Kuwait’s appeal on state immunity. It held that prior EAT rulings on section 5 of the State Immunity Act 1978 should be followed, and that psychiatric injury is included.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed an appeal against refusal of wasted costs, holding that the representative’s conduct did not meet the required threshold.
The EAT held that NIC grossing-up in a compensation award was an error, but refused to allow the appellant to raise the point for the first time on appeal.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed an age discrimination appeal, holding there was no less favourable treatment where the comparator was offered a lower package.
The EAT dismissed an appeal against findings dismissing race and age discrimination and harassment claims, holding the challenged factual finding was not perverse.
Fasano v Reckitt Benckiser Group Plc & Anor [2025] EWCA Civ 592 (07 May 2025)
Court of Appeal held RB Group was not RB Health’s agent in amending LTIP rules, and upheld dismissal of the age discrimination appeal.
Liability for unfair constructive dismissal and harassment under ERA 1996 and EA 2010 did not transfer to the alleged transferee employer under TUPE because the claimant's employment had not transferred. The Tribunal correctly refused the amendment application as the TUPE point was a potential defence that should have been raised earlier and was not a jurisdictional issue. Any error in handling the amendment was immaterial as it could not have affected the outcome.
Source excerpt
The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the tribunal wrongly extended time for an age discrimination claim without properly weighing delay and forensic prejudice.
The tribunal erred in law by failing to recognise the extent of the appellant’s pleaded case, wrongly concluding that material facts were not disputed, failing to take her complaints at their highest, and making an informal assessment of the likelihood of the respondent’s evidence being preferred. These errors rendered the strike out of the discrimination complaints unlawful.
Source excerpt
The EAT allowed Ms Kemsley’s appeal, holding that the tribunal had not properly evaluated the case because its reasons largely copied the respondent’s submissions and missed key issues.
Explore more
