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.
When leaving it 48 hours late costs you the whole case
This is a cautionary tale for HR about the perils of missing deadlines, even by a whisker. You can read the full judgment here: Miss G Mangwanya v National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux.
Miss Mangwanya brought claims of race and disability discrimination against Citizens Advice, accusing the organisation of being racist and advancing numerous allegations, but the tribunal dismissed her claims in 2023. In 2025 she tried to appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, but her appeal was lodged 48 hours out of time – and that was enough to sink it.
The medical excuses that didn’t land
Both Miss Mangwanya and her partner (a solicitor helping her, though not an employment law specialist) have medical conditions including IBS and bowel issues which they said made it harder to meet deadlines than it would be for others. However, they left it very late to instruct counsel, and Judge Tayler concluded that the missed deadline was mainly down to poor organisation rather than their health conditions.
Why the judge refused extra time
Even though the delay was short and essentially a human error, the judge refused to extend time for the appeal. There would have been real prejudice to Citizens Advice, who had already successfully defended the claim and were entitled to think the matter was finished, and in any event the judge doubted that the proposed appeal was even arguable.
What HR should take from this
The case underlines how strict procedural time limits are, especially where bias is alleged and formal requirements (such as a proper statement of truth) are not met. For HR, the message is clear: whether you are handling internal grievances or watching litigation from the sidelines, good diary management, clear communication on deadlines, and not leaving things to the last minute are just as important as the legal arguments themselves.
When “Bias” allegations keep coming back
This time, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) finds itself back in the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) opposite a very familiar name: Mr Hafeez Ahmed. You can read the judgment here: Mr H Ahmed v Department for Work and Pensions
Mr Ahmed has a long-running set of claims against the DWP, including disability discrimination, victimisation and issues around reasonable adjustments and case management at earlier stages. Previous EAT litigation has already looked at apparent bias in earlier tribunal panels and how his case should be handled going forward.
What this round was about
In this latest appeal, Mr Ahmed again challenged how his case was being managed and progressed in the employment tribunal, rather than re‑running all the original facts of his employment. The EAT (Judge Auerbach) had to decide whether the tribunal’s handling of directions, listings and previous decisions crossed the line into unfairness or apparent bias.
The appeal sits against the backdrop of previous findings that parts of his case needed to be reheard by a differently constituted tribunal because of apparent bias, which naturally coloured how both sides viewed subsequent case management. For HR, this gives a flavour of just how procedurally complex long-running discrimination litigation can become once bias arguments enter the picture.
Key lessons for HR
Case management is not a side issue: how directions are set, who hears the case, and how concerns are dealt with can become appeal points in their own right, quite separate from the underlying dismissal or discrimination allegations.
Bias concerns must be handled visibly and fairly: once bias is raised, employers and representatives should expect much closer scrutiny of who sits, what is said in hearings, and how previous interactions might be perceived by a “fair‑minded and informed observer”.
Reasonable adjustments and process go hand in hand: where disability and workload are in play, employers need to be able to show that adjustments, communication and timetabling have been actively discussed and reviewed, not just left to the tribunal to sort out.
For HR teams, the broader message is that once a case becomes procedurally messy and trust breaks down, it can drag on for years—so early, transparent handling of grievances, adjustments and communications is not just “nice to have”, it may save a lot of time in front of a judge later.
USB sticks, speeding points and a dismissal
DPD’s latest trip to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) involves Mr Kulvinder Taak, a senior manager dismissed for misconduct and later unsuccessful with his unfair dismissal claim in the employment tribunal. You can read the appeal judgment here: Mr K Taak v DPD Group UK Ltd
Mr Taak’s dismissal followed concerns about misuse of an unauthorised USB stick on company IT systems, overpayment issues relating to a company car, and a speeding incident where he failed to identify the driver to the police, all against the background of an earlier first and final written warning. The employment tribunal found that DPD had a genuine belief in his misconduct, had carried out a reasonable investigation, and had acted within the range of reasonable responses when deciding to dismiss.
What ended up in the EAT?
On appeal, Mr Taak did not get to re‑run all the facts but instead argued that the tribunal had gone wrong in law in the way it analysed fairness and the earlier warning. The EAT looked at whether the tribunal had properly directed itself to the classic unfair dismissal questions: reasonable belief, reasonable investigation and fair procedure, taking account of the live warning.
The EAT was satisfied that the tribunal had correctly applied the law and had reached conclusions that were open to it on the evidence, so the unfair dismissal appeal failed. In short, the EAT did not see any legal error big enough to justify interfering with the original decision.
HR takeaways from Taak
Warnings really do matter: a first and final written warning on file can legitimately tip the balance when later misconduct arises, provided it was properly issued and the employer is entitled to rely on it.
Stick to a clear misconduct process: DPD’s investigation, disciplinary hearing and documentation gave the tribunal enough to conclude that the decision to dismiss fell within the band of reasonable responses.
Tech and policy breaches count: apparently “small” IT or policy breaches (like using an unauthorised USB stick) can still justify serious sanctions where security, trust or seniority are in play, as long as rules have been clearly communicated.
For HR teams, the case underlines the value of clear policies, documented warnings, and a methodical misconduct process – they are what stand up on appeal long after the drama of the dismissal has faded.
Can you sack someone two weeks after a final warning?
This case looks at how quickly an employer can move from a performance final warning to dismissal, and what a tribunal has to do when that timing is challenged as unfair. You can read the judgment here: Mr Peter Sabourin v BT Group Plc
Mr Sabourin, a senior manager at BT, had been put on a performance improvement plan (PIP), then given a first written warning and later a final written warning when his manager concluded he still wasn’t meeting the required standards. Just about two weeks after that final warning, another manager decided to dismiss him on capability grounds, relying heavily on the same performance evidence that had underpinned the warning.
What went wrong at the tribunal?
The employment tribunal found the dismissal fair overall, accepting that BT honestly believed Mr Sabourin lacked capability and that they had reasonable grounds for that belief after a period of PIP and warnings. But on appeal, his representative argued something quite specific: that the dismissing manager did not really look at what had happened in the short period after the final warning, and simply re‑used the earlier evidence.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that this was a distinct and material argument about fairness which the tribunal simply had not addressed in its reasons. Because that point could potentially affect whether it was fair to move from a final warning to dismissal in just two weeks, the case was sent back to the same judge to make findings on that issue and then reconsider fairness in light of them.
HR takeaways from Sabourin
If you move quickly from final warning to dismissal, you must show you have genuinely considered what has happened in the period after the warning, not just recycled the old evidence.
Tribunals must engage with central planks of each side’s case; if a key fairness argument isn’t addressed at all, there is a real risk of an appeal.
For HR, this underlines the importance of documenting what has improved (or not) after a warning, and making sure decision‑makers are seen to review fresh information rather than treating the warning as a foregone stepping stone to dismissal.
When a bank worker’s case runs out of road
This case is a reminder that not every grievance about treatment at work will get past the first procedural hurdles in the tribunal. You can read the appeal judgment here: Miss Ann Palmer v Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust
Miss Palmer was a healthcare assistant on the Trust’s staff bank, working on a zero‑hours basis rather than as an employee. She brought a bundle of claims including sexual orientation discrimination, holiday pay, arrears of pay and other contractual and statutory complaints linked to her treatment and suspension.
Striking out before you get going
At a preliminary stage, the employment tribunal struck out all of Miss Palmer’s claims on the basis that they had no reasonable prospect of success in law. For example, her attempts to add constructive dismissal and breach of contract claims failed because those routes are only open to employees, and she accepted she was not an employee.
The tribunal also refused a series of late amendments: unlawful deduction from wages based on small discrepancies in pay slips, a victimisation claim relying on the claim form itself as the “protected act”, and adding individual respondents when there were effectively no viable claims left to attach them to. With nothing left that could sensibly proceed, the tribunal brought the case to an end at that stage.
What this means for HR
Employment status really matters: being a bank or zero‑hours worker can limit which claims someone can bring, especially around dismissal and breach of contract.
Not every complaint turns into a viable legal claim: some theories simply do not fit the statutory wording, even if the individual feels badly treated.
Early case‑management decisions can be decisive: if claims or amendments are seen as having no reasonable prospect, they can be struck out before a full hearing – so clear documentation on status, contracts and pay is crucial.
This article was created with insights from Lex HR - your always-on HR legal assistant. Lex HR helps HR professionals navigate complex employment law with confidence, providing real-time, reliable advice tailored to your needs. Try it free today and see how much easier compliance can be.
