Law reports

Precedent-setting cases from the EAT and appellate courts, along with reports of selected tribunal cases.

This tool will help you:

  • Stay up to date with developments in case law.
  • Keep informed about the situations that have led to employment tribunal claims.

Browse by case title


Search by case title

Stop press

  • Working time: No compensation for injury to feelings for rest break failures

    21 March 2018

    In Santos Gomes v Higher Level Care Ltd, the Court of Appeal held that compensation for injury to feelings is not available in a claim under the Working Time Regulations 1998 (SI 1998/1833) for a failure to provide 20-minute rest breaks..

  • Disability discrimination: Expectation to work long hours was a PCP

    15 March 2018

    In United First Partners Research v Nicolas Carreras, the Court of Appeal held that a pattern of repeated requests that an employee work in the evenings, which created a pressure on him to agree, was capable of amounting to a "provision, criterion or practice" (PCP) under the Equality Act 2010.

  • Pregnancy discrimination: Decision to dismiss made before knowledge of pregnancy

    15 March 2018

    In Really Easy Car Credit Ltd v Thompson, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) allowed the appeal and held that the employer was not obliged to revisit its decision to dismiss when it became aware that the employee was pregnant.

  • Agency worker's higher pay did not offset inferior holiday entitlement

    14 March 2018

    In Kocur v Angard Staffing Solutions Ltd and another, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that a failure to provide an agency worker with the same annual leave entitlement and paid rest breaks as those enjoyed by permanent employees could not be offset by a higher rate of pay.

  • EAT ruling on extent of redundancy consultation obligations

    8 March 2018

    In Keeping Kids Company (in compulsory liquidation) v Smith and others, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruled that events occurring after redundancy proposals did not excuse a charity's obligation to consult collectively, but could potentially be relied on to reduce the amount of the protective award.