News & Updates
Stay up to date with the latest EAT case roundups, employment law changes, and HR compliance insights.
Facebook posts, contributory conduct and reinstatement: lessons from DHL v Ignatowicz [2026] EAT 74
In DHL Services Ltd v Ignatowicz [2026] EAT 74, the Employment Appeal Tribunal considered an employer’s appeal against remedy findings following a successful unfair dismissal claim arising from a series of Facebook posts connected to a workplace grievance. While the Tribunal had found the dismissal unfair, reduced compensation by 10% for contributory conduct, and ordered reinstatement, DHL challenged the Tribunal’s approach to those remedy issues.
Fixed-term employees and training opportunities: lessons from Komeng v National Highways [2026] EAT 75
In Komeng v National Highways Ltd [2026] EAT 75, the Employment Appeal Tribunal considered whether a fixed-term employee had been treated less favourably when he was not informed about or nominated for an HR Business Partner development programme that was offered to permanent colleagues.
EAT case roundup (May 2026): Prescribed medication, burden of proof, procedural errors and training exclusions in focus
In this month's round-up, prepared by LexHR, we examine four recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decisions covering disability discrimination in pre-employment drug testing, the burden of proof in discrimination claims, procedural errors in tribunal proceedings, and race and sex discrimination arising from exclusion from training opportunities.
Disability harassment, workplace mediation and constructive dismissal: lessons from Foat v DWP [2026] EAT 61
In Foat v Department for Work and Pensions [2026] EAT 61, the Employment Appeal Tribunal considered appeals arising from a substantial compensation award following findings of disability-related harassment, failure to make reasonable adjustments, constructive dismissal, and unfair dismissal.
EAT case roundup (Feb 2026): Dismissal appeals, whistleblowing, discrimination and procedural pitfalls in focus
Employment Appeal Tribunal rulings from February 2026 cover a wide range of issues — from the dangers of defective dismissal appeals to the limits of whistleblowing protection, the treatment of religious belief in recruitment, and the proper approach to composite misconduct.
EAT case roundup (Jan 2026): Discipline, disability, TUPE and whistleblowing in focus
Six Employment Appeal Tribunal decisions from January and February 2026 cover disciplinary fairness, Polkey reductions, section 15 discrimination, post-TUPE pay, state immunity and the reach of COT3 settlement agreements. The cases carry practical lessons across a wide range of everyday employment situations.
EAT case roundup (Dec 2025): Remedy, time limits and when procedure decides the outcome
Across whistleblowing remedies, discrimination timing, COT3 settlement effect, costs and redundancy consultation, the EAT reinforces a consistent theme: technical framing, evidence and statutory gateways frequently drive the final result.
EAT case roundup (Nov 2025): Missed deadlines, bias battles and warning woes: this month’s big EAT lessons for HR
This month’s Employment Appeal Tribunal round-up highlights the practical pitfalls that catch employers and claimants alike — from 48-hour deadline slips, to recurring bias allegations, to how closely tribunals scrutinise warnings, capability processes and even status disputes. Here are the EAT decisions HR teams should know about — and what each one tells us about process, documentation and getting the basics right.
EAT case roundup (Oct 2025): This week in employment law: costs risks, capability pitfalls, and lessons from the EAT
A sharp set of EAT rulings this week offers timely reminders for HR, legal and in-house teams: wasted-costs threats remain high-risk, fair procedure still rules even in clear capability cases, and tribunals continue to scrutinise documentation, reasoning and process at every stage. Here’s what HR needs to know.
Fire and rehire: what HR needs to know about the new rules
The government is cracking down on so-called “fire and rehire” tactics — where employers dismiss staff who refuse new terms and then offer to rehire them on revised contracts. While this approach has long been controversial, it’s about to become almost impossible to use legally in most circumstances.
Want AI-powered employment law guidance?