Fullah v Medical Research Council & Ors (Victimisation) [2026] EAT 28 (20 February 2026)

Fullah v Medical Research Council & Ors (Victimisation) [2026] EAT 28 (20 February 2026)

The Employment Tribunal failed to address the specific causation issue remitted by the EAT, namely whether the breakdown in working relationships was in substantial part because the claimant brought ET proceedings or due to matters properly separable from the protected acts. This was a fundamental error, requiring the matter to be remitted again to a differently constituted Employment Tribunal.

Citation
[2026] EAT 28
Parties
Appellant: Mr H Fullah; First Respondent: Medical Research Council; Second Respondent: Professor Susan Gathercole; Third Respondent: Mrs Michelle Barthelemy; Fourth Respondent: Dr Tony Peatfield; Fifth Respondent: Ms Julie Kemp
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
20 February 2026
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal From Remitted Employment Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Victimisation, Protected Acts, Causation, Remittal Procedure, Burden of Proof
Employment Law Equality Law Victimisation Protected Acts Causation Remittal Procedure Burden of Proof

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr H Fullah

Appellant

Medical Research Council

First Respondent

Professor Susan Gathercole

Second Respondent

Mrs Michelle Barthelemy

Third Respondent

Dr Tony Peatfield

Fourth Respondent

Ms Julie Kemp

Fifth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal From Remitted Employment Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal properly determined the causation issue in a victimisation complaint as remitted by the EAT
  2. 2 Whether the breakdown in working relationships was properly separable from the protected acts (bringing ET claims)
  3. 3 Whether the Employment Tribunal applied the correct legal test for victimisation

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal failed to address the specific causation issue remitted by the EAT, namely whether the breakdown in working relationships was in substantial part because the claimant brought ET proceedings or due to matters properly separable from the protected acts. This was a fundamental error, requiring the matter to be remitted again to a differently constituted Employment Tribunal.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Matter remitted to a differently constituted Employment Tribunal to determine whether suspension and/or dismissal were because of protected acts, specifically considering whether reasons were properly separable from the protected acts.