Bryce v Active Security Solutions Ltd & Anor (Practice and Procedure - Reasonable Adjustments for Claimant's Disability - s.44 Employment Rights Act 1996 - meaning of "designated" and "detriment") [2026] EAT 16 (21 January 2026)

Bryce v Active Security Solutions Ltd & Anor (Practice and Procedure - Reasonable Adjustments for Claimant's Disability - s.44 Employment Rights Act 1996 - meaning of "designated" and "detriment") [2026] EAT 16 (21 January 2026)

The claimant was not deprived of a fair hearing by the refusal to allow written submissions as a reasonable adjustment, as he failed to identify any material issue he could not address orally; the Tribunal was bound by Castano to find the claimant was not 'designated' for health and safety activities under section 44 ERA; any error regarding 'detriment' was academic as section 44(1) protection did not apply.

Citation
[2026] EAT 16
Parties
Appellant: Mr R J Bryce; First Respondent: Active Security Solutions Limited; Second Respondent: Stonegate Pub Company Limited
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
21 January 2026
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal From Reserved Judgment of Employment Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal refused
Legal Topics
Reasonable Adjustments, Procedural Fairness, Section 44 Employment Rights Act 1996, Meaning of 'designated' and 'detriment', Strike Out Applications, Deposit Orders
Employment Law Disability Discrimination Health and Safety Reasonable Adjustments Procedural Fairness Section 44 Employment Rights Act 1996 Meaning of 'designated' and 'detriment' Strike Out Applications +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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr R J Bryce

Appellant

Active Security Solutions Limited

First Respondent

Stonegate Pub Company Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal From Reserved Judgment of Employment Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether refusal to allow written submissions as a reasonable adjustment was a material procedural error
  2. 2 Whether claimant was 'designated' for health and safety activities under section 44 ERA
  3. 3 Whether sending claimant home constituted a 'detriment' under section 44 ERA

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant was not deprived of a fair hearing by the refusal to allow written submissions as a reasonable adjustment, as he failed to identify any material issue he could not address orally; the Tribunal was bound by Castano to find the claimant was not 'designated' for health and safety activities under section 44 ERA; any error regarding 'detriment' was academic as section 44(1) protection did not apply.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused