Robert Spicer
We are pleased to share a run down of Bob Spicer’s case law summaries featured on his Linked In page from the past month April 25th – May 24th 2025, covering key developments in the practice area.
A huge thank you to Bob Spicer of Frederick Place Chambers for his continued support of Chronicle Law and for allowing us to share his insights with our legal professional community.
Topics covered in this Employment Law Case Summary Update:
External HR Consultants
- Handa v The Station Hotel (Newcastle) Ltd (2025) Morning Star, May 20
Discrimination
- Equans Services Ltd v Bennett [2025] EAT 33
Employment Tribunals
- Madu v Loughborough College [2025] EAT 52
- Wealmoor Ltd v Poniatowski [2025] EAT 48
- Griffiths v Scarista Ltd and others [2025] EAT 36
- Kostrova v McDermott International Inc and another [2025] EAT 35
- Iyieke v Bearing Point Ltd [2025] EAT 25
Public Disruption
- National Council for Civil Liberties v Secretary of State for Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 571, Court of Appeal
External HR Consultants
Handa v The Station Hotel (Newcastle) Ltd (2025) Morning Star, May 20
Facts
H was a former employee of SH. He complained of unfair dismissal and whistleblowing detriment. He claimed that he had made protected disclosures related to alleged financial irregularities in SH. H also brought claims against two external HR consultants on the basis that they were agents of SH whose actions had been partly responsible for his dismissal and were personally liable.
The ET struck out the claims against the consultants, finding that they were independent contractors and not agents. Performing work on behalf of an employer did not amount to agency unless the employer had conferred authority on the individual who was acting on its behalf. There was no personal liability. The role of the external HR consultants was limited to investigation and recommendation. H appealed to the EAT.
Decision
1. The appeal was dismissed.
2. There was no arguable case for finding that the consultants were agents of SH.
Discrimination
Equans Services Ltd v Bennett [2025] EAT 33
Facts
B, an employee of E, resigned because of ill-health. He complained of unfair dismissal and disability and age discrimination. His particulars of claim did not refer to age discrimination. Particulars were later provided where B named a person who had made comments. The age discrimination claim was 14 months out of time. The ET allowed the claim to proceed on the basis of B’s ill-health which might have caused the delay. Further, there was no prejudice to E because the named person was no longer employed by E. E appealed to the EAT.
Decision
1. The appeal was allowed.
2. The ET had not fully considered the length of and reasons for the delay or the balance of prejudice to the parties.
3. It had not fully considered the prejudice to E of having to defend a claim which would be defeated by the time limit issue.
4. The ET had failed to consider the relative prejudice to the parties.
5. The ET’s finding that there was no prejudice to E because the named person was no longer employed, failed to take account that this person was the main perpetrator of the discrimination. It also failed to take account of the effect of the delay on the quality of that person’s evidence.
Employment Tribunals
Madu v Loughborough College [2025] EAT 52
Facts
M complained of race discrimination in relation to his failure to obtain employment with L. He acted as a litigant in person and later obtained legal representation. The ET found that when he was legally represented he would have been warned that his complaint had no reasonable prospect of success. It awarded £20,000 costs against him. M appealed to the EAT.
Decision
1. The appeal was allowed.
2. The ET had been wrong to decide that M should have appreciated from the start that his complaint had no reasonable prospect of success.
3. The ET had no regard to the difficulties of a claimant to decide prospects of success in a case based on the employer’s decision not to appoint him.
4. The ET had not analysed the nature, gravity and effect of the unreasonable conduct.
Wealmoor Ltd v Poniatowski [2025] EAT 48
Facts
P made successful claims for failure to make reasonable adjustments, discrimination because of something arising in consequence of disability, unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal. W Ltd appealed against the amount of compensation awarded in relation to the grossing up of the injury to feelings award and the ET’s finding that P had fully mitigated his loss.
Decision
1. The appeal was allowed.
2. The ET had not considered whether the whole of the injury to feelings award would be subject to tax and should be grossed up.
3. The ET should have apportioned the award and only grossed up the amount which related to dismissal.
4. The finding of the ET in relation to mitigation was inadequate.
Griffiths v Scarista Ltd and others [2025] EAT 36
Facts
An ET judge stated that judgment would be delivered four days after a preliminary hearing if no settlement had been achieved. A settlement was reached and G withdrew her claims by email to the ET. G requested that judgment should not be promulgated or published. The ET promulgated and published the judgment and declined to withdraw the judgment from the register. G appealed to the EAT.
Decision
1. The appeal was allowed.
2. The ET had been wrong not to treat the claims as having been withdrawn.
3. The ET had erred in failing to accept that the withdrawal of the claims brought them to an end and instead treating them as live.
4. The ET’s judgment should be reconsidered.
Kostrova v McDermott International Inc and another [2025] EAT 35
Facts
K’s ET Form included ticked boxes stating that she was complaining of age and sex discrimination and claiming equal pay. The Form also included a ticked box related to unfair dismissal. She did not have two years continuous employment. The employer applied for a strike out on the basis that K’s claims had no reasonable prospects of success. The ET allowed the application. K appealed to the EAT.
Decision
1. The appeal was allowed.
2. The ET had failed to appreciate the extent of K’s pleaded case.
3. The ET had wrongly concluded that the material facts of the discrimination claim were not disputed.
4. It had failed to take K’s complaints at their highest by making an informal assessment of the likelihood of the employer’s evidence being preferred.
5. The cumulative errors had resulted in the ET’s strike out decision being wrong in law.
Iyieke v Bearing Point Ltd [2025] EAT 25
Facts
I was dismissed by BP Ltd but two of his colleagues, not of his race, were furloughed. I complained of race discrimination. The complaint was not successful and BP Ltd applied for costs. The ET awarded £10,000 costs on the basis that I should have realised, following the exchange of witness statements, that his claim had no reasonable prospect of success. I appealed to the EAT.
Decision
1. The appeal was allowed.
2. I had a reasonable basis for continuing his claim to trial at which BP Ltd’s witness evidence could be tested.
3. The ET had been wrong to award the maximum amount without addressing whether such an award was reasonable and proportionate.
Public Order
National Council for Civil Liberties v Secretary of State for Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 571, Court of Appeal
Facts
Suella Braverman, then Home Secretary, introduced a statutory instrument which amended the Public Order Act 1986 to redefine “serious disruption” as “more than minor” in relation to when police could impose limits on protests. Liberty, formerly the National Council for Civil Liberties, argued that the amendment was beyond the power of the government and there had been a one-sided consultation process. It successfully brought judicial review proceedings in the High Court and the amendment was quashed. Braverman appealed to the Court of Appeal.
Decision
1. The appeal was dismissed.
2. “Serious” cannot simply mean “more than minor”.
3. The term “serious” inherently connotes a high threshold and cannot reasonably encompass anything which is merely “more than minor”.
4. In relation to the consultation, the government’s engagement did not have the character of a formal consultation but was intra-government. It had not complied with common law principles as regards procedural fairness.