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

  • Court of Appeal clarifies approach to discrimination arising from disability

    24 May 2018

    In City of York Council v Grosset, the Court of Appeal held that the dismissal of a teacher for showing an 18-rated film to his pupils amounted to discrimination arising from his disability, even though the school had not been aware that the teacher's conduct was linked to his disability.

  • Gig economy: Addison Lee courier was a worker, holds EAT

    18 May 2018

    In Addison Lee Ltd v Gascoigne, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that a cycle courier was a worker rather than self-employed.

  • EAT confirms importance of "context" in harassment cases

    17 May 2018

    In Bakkali v Greater Manchester Buses (South) Ltd t/a Stage Coach Manchester, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that asking a Muslim employee whether or not he supported IS did not amount to harassment because, given the context, the offending comment was not "related to" his religious belief or race.

  • Court of Appeal rules on correct approach to constructive dismissal

    10 May 2018

    In Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, the Court of Appeal held that, in "last straw" cases, an employee may rely on earlier affirmed breaches of contract provided that the later act forms part of the series.

  • Shared parental pay: Tribunal should rehear indirect sex discrimination claim, rules EAT

    3 May 2018

    In Hextall v Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police and another, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) remitted to a fresh tribunal the issue of whether or not a police force's policy of giving a period of full pay to mothers on maternity leave, but paying only statutory shared parental pay to partners, is indirectly discriminatory.