Tarbuc v Martello Piling Ltd (TRIBUNAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - S.111A EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS ACT 1996) [2026] EAT 58 (28 April 2026)

Tarbuc v Martello Piling Ltd (TRIBUNAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - S.111A EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS ACT 1996) [2026] EAT 58 (28 April 2026)

The Employment Tribunal erred in law by applying section 111A ERA 1996 globally to all claims, rather than only to the unfair dismissal claim. Section 111A does not exclude evidence in relation to the unlawful deduction from wages and part-time worker discrimination claims. The Tribunal was not required to identify an automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.104 ERA 1996 on its own initiative. The Tribunal's assessment of improper conduct was incomplete, as it failed to consider the cumulative effect of the respondent's conduct, including the lack of notice and opportunity for accompaniment.

Citation
[2026] EAT 58
Parties
Appellant: Mr L Tarbuc; Respondent: Martello Piling Limited
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
28 April 2026
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal From Preliminary Hearing Decision on Admissibility of Evidence Under S.111 a ERA 1996
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; case remitted to Employment Tribunal for reconsideration of admissibility of evidence in non-unfair dismissal claims and proper assessment of improper conduct.
Legal Topics
Protected Conversations, Section 111 a Employment Rights Act 1996, Unfair Dismissal, Automatic Unfair Dismissal, Unlawful Deduction From Wages, Part Time Worker Discrimination, Improper Conduct in Settlement Negotiations, ACAS Code of Practice
Employment Law Protected Conversations Section 111 a Employment Rights Act 1996 Unfair Dismissal Automatic Unfair Dismissal Unlawful Deduction From Wages Part Time Worker Discrimination Improper Conduct in Settlement Negotiations +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr L Tarbuc

Appellant

Martello Piling Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal From Preliminary Hearing Decision on Admissibility of Evidence Under S.111 a ERA 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does section 111A ERA 1996 exclude evidence of pre-termination negotiations from all claims or only unfair dismissal?
  2. 2 Did the Employment Tribunal err in failing to consider the statutory exceptions to s.111A?
  3. 3 Did the Tribunal err in its assessment of improper conduct under s.111A(4)?

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal erred in law by applying section 111A ERA 1996 globally to all claims, rather than only to the unfair dismissal claim. Section 111A does not exclude evidence in relation to the unlawful deduction from wages and part-time worker discrimination claims. The Tribunal was not required to identify an automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.104 ERA 1996 on its own initiative. The Tribunal's assessment of improper conduct was incomplete, as it failed to consider the cumulative effect of the respondent's conduct, including the lack of notice and opportunity for accompaniment.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; case remitted to Employment Tribunal for reconsideration of admissibility of evidence in non-unfair dismissal claims and proper assessment of improper conduct.

Orders

  • Employment Tribunal's order excluding evidence of the protected conversation from all claims set aside.
  • Employment Tribunal to reconsider the admissibility of evidence in relation to the unlawful deduction from wages and part-time worker claims.