A fresh batch of Employment Appeal Tribunal rulings highlights where privilege ends, how far pleadings can stretch, and why precision matters from day one.
Tribunal rules legal privilege can’t hide wrongdoing in CORE Education case
A recent case has clarified that employers can’t hide behind “legal privilege” if the advice they’re trying to protect is tied up in alleged misconduct.
In X v Y, Z & CORE Education Trust [2025] EAT 128, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld a tribunal’s decision that an email sent by the claimant’s employer, while supposedly legal advice, wasn’t protected by legal privilege.
Why? Because the judge found it could form part of a wrongful act — in this case, potentially discriminatory behaviour. That triggered what’s known as the “iniquity exception”, which means legal privilege no longer applies.
The claimant had argued the email showed how decisions affecting them were influenced by bias, and the tribunal agreed the message couldn’t be kept secret if it was part of that chain of events. The employer's attempt to keep the email out of the case failed and the EAT backed that ruling.
Key Learning Points for HR and Legal Teams
Privilege has limits. Legal advice is usually protected from disclosure but not when it’s part of, or used to cover up, possible wrongdoing.
“Just label it privileged” doesn’t work. Even if an email is framed as legal advice, tribunals can dig deeper. If the content is part of a discriminatory or dishonest action, it may have to be disclosed.
Watch your paper (and email) trail. Be careful what’s written down, and why. If internal discussions cross into risky territory, assuming they’ll stay private under “legal privilege” may be a false comfort.
Get advice early, not just defensively. Legal input is most helpful when it supports fair and transparent decisions not when it’s used after the fact to justify them.
Avoid mixing advice with strategy. Keep legal advice clearly separated from operational decision-making to reduce the risk of it being challenged as part of a broader misconduct claim.
This case is a timely reminder: legal privilege isn’t a get-out-of-jail-free card. If something looks like it’s helping to conceal discrimination or unfair treatment, tribunals won’t hesitate to lift the lid.
Tribunal says ‘no’ to late claim changes in Chestnut Inns case
Trying to add new allegations once a tribunal case is underway? It’s a risky move — and one that didn’t work out for a claimant in a recent appeal.
In Shane Maltby v Chestnut Inns Ltd [2025] EAT 130, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) backed an earlier tribunal’s decision to reject several late-stage discrimination complaints because they weren’t part of the original claim.
Maltby’s initial case included allegations of disability discrimination and unfair dismissal up to a certain point. But as the case progressed, he tried to add more examples of alleged discriminatory treatment and failures to make reasonable adjustments. The tribunal said no and the EAT agreed.
On appeal, Maltby argued that earlier documents hinted at a broader pattern of mistreatment. But the judge made it clear: tribunals go by what’s actually been pleaded in the claim, not what might have been implied or mentioned elsewhere.
In short: if it’s not in the original claim, don’t expect it to make the cut later.
Key takeaways for HR and legal teams
Start strong with the right pleadings. Tribunal claims need to be clearly and precisely set out from the beginning. Adding new complaints later isn’t guaranteed to succeed.
Background noise doesn’t equal legal claims. Just because something is mentioned in a grievance letter or internal email doesn’t mean it becomes part of the legal case.
Get legal eyes on grievances early. When employees raise concerns, it’s worth getting legal input upfront to make sure all potential claims, from discrimination to dismissal, are properly understood.
Be ready to push back on late changes. If a claim starts to shift mid-process, don’t be afraid to challenge it. Tribunals will support fairness and procedural clarity.
Document everything. If the scope of a claim is tight, your best defence is good evidence: what was done, when, and why. Especially around adjustments, performance management and decision-making.
Maltby v Chestnut Inns is a useful reminder: in tribunal proceedings, what’s pleaded is what matters. Once the game starts, you can’t move the goalposts.
Tribunal shuts down widened discrimination claims in Network Rail case – pleadings must be precise
Trying to add new complaints halfway through a tribunal? The courts aren’t having it.
In Mr Golam Chowdhury v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd [2025] EAT 132, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) backed an earlier tribunal decision to keep the case tightly focused on the claims that were properly set out at the start and to reject new disability discrimination allegations introduced later.
Chowdhury initially brought a claim for disability discrimination, but as the case progressed, he tried to bring in additional complaints including claims around ongoing failures to make reasonable adjustments.
The tribunal said no. Those extra claims hadn’t been properly pleaded and simply mentioning them in earlier documents wasn’t enough.
The EAT agreed. The judges made clear that tribunals are not expected to chase down every grievance raised informally, they work with what’s formally pleaded in the claim.
In other words: if it’s not in the paperwork, it doesn’t count.
Key takeaways for HR and legal teams
Stick to what’s pleaded. Tribunals only deal with what’s been formally submitted. Even if other issues were raised in emails or grievance meetings, they won’t be considered unless they’re included in the actual claim.
Don’t try to sneak in extras. Adding new claims partway through the process is likely to be blocked. The original ET1 and particulars need to be as complete and accurate as possible.
Line up internal and legal strategies. If employees raise wide-ranging internal complaints, HR should work with legal teams early to make sure anything legally actionable is included in the formal response.
Be ready to push back on late changes. If a claimant tries to shift the goalposts, object. Tribunals will support clarity and fairness not trial by hindsight.
Document from the get-go. If a claim ends up narrowly focused, your best defence is a strong paper trail. Record decisions, conversations, adjustments offered, and anything declined clearly and contemporaneously.
The message is clear: employment tribunals expect clarity and consistency from day one. Loose ends and afterthoughts don’t belong in formal litigation and HR teams need to plan accordingly.
Late claim backfires in Mizuho case — tribunal says ‘too little, too late’
A former employee who tried to add new claims halfway through a tribunal has ended up footing part of the legal bill after Judge Keith ruled the late-stage amendment caused unnecessary delay.
In Ms Liliana Vassallo v Mizuho International Plc & Mizuho Bank Ltd, Vassallo initially brought a claim against her former employer but didn’t include whistleblowing or unfair dismissal. Partway through the case, she tried to amend her pleadings to add both.
The tribunal wasn’t impressed. It refused the amendment and ordered Vassallo to pay part of the company’s legal costs, pointing out that she had had plenty of time to raise those claims earlier.
On appeal, Vassallo argued she had accidentally submitted the wrong version of her ET1 (claim form) and said the judge should have looked more closely into why. But the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) disagreed.
The EAT made it clear: tribunals are entitled to expect parties to submit claims deliberately and correctly and judges aren’t required to dig through alternate drafts that were never formally filed.
It also confirmed that tribunal judges aren’t investigators. They don’t have to go behind the scenes to explore why a claimant left something out, especially when doing so might risk breaching legal privilege.
Key learning points for HR and legal teams
Claims must be right from the start. Late-stage changes, especially ones that widen the scope significantly, are unlikely to be accepted and can cause delays.
Mistakes can be costly. In this case, the claimant had to contribute to the employer’s legal costs due to the disruption caused by trying to amend too late.
Unofficial drafts don’t count. Only the version of the ET1 that’s actually submitted to the tribunal carries weight. Earlier versions or internal drafts aren’t part of the case.
Tribunals won’t ask why something was left out. It’s up to the claimant to get it right, judges won’t play detective, and they’re not expected to.
Early legal input is essential. If an internal grievance might lead to a tribunal, legal teams should help ensure all potential claims are properly identified and included from the beginning.
This case is a useful reminder: tribunal claims are legal documents not working drafts. Getting things wrong early on can lead to time lost, claims refused, and money out of pocket.
Tribunal narrows discrimination case to “what was actually said” in final submission
If you don’t say it say it in the right document, don’t expect it to be part of your tribunal case. That’s the message from a recent Employment Appeal Tribunal ruling that put clear limits on how wide a discrimination claim can stretch.
In Mr Charles Vessey v Richmond Photography Ltd [2025] EAT 135, the EAT backed a tribunal’s decision to narrow Vessey’s disability discrimination claim to what was specifically written in a final summary note not what had been hinted at in earlier documents.
Vessey had initially raised broad concerns, including issues during his employment and failure to make reasonable adjustments. But by the time his legal team submitted a final summary, the focus had shifted solely to his redundancy described as an act of direct discrimination.
The tribunal took that summary as the final word. And when Vessey appealed, hoping to bring the earlier complaints back in, the EAT said no. Once a claim is narrowed or reworded, that’s what the tribunal works with not everything that came before.
Key Takeaways for HR & Legal Teams
Tribunals rely on final submissions
If a summary note or amended pleading narrows the case, that becomes the basis for proceedings. Earlier letters, grievances or claims won’t automatically carry over so treat the most recent submission as definitive.
Changing the label changes the claim
Vessey’s case originally included indirect discrimination and failure to make adjustments. But once it was reframed as direct discrimination over redundancy, the rest effectively fell away. Keep track of how claims are described, it’s not just semantics.
Vague complaints can evolve and catch you out
What starts as a flexible working request or adjustment issue can morph into a dismissal claim. If an internal grievance lacks clarity, ask for it and keep good notes along the way. It could make all the difference later.
Tribunals don’t deal in implied claims
If something’s not clearly set out in the legal pleadings, it’s not part of the case. Don’t waste time (or budget) defending vague or implied allegations unless they’ve been formally pleaded.
HR and legal reps need to stay in sync
If an employee is represented, HR should keep a close eye on any summary notes or amended claims. Sometimes key allegations disappear quietly which can shift your risk and strategy.
Bottom Line for HR
Tribunal judges don’t work off guesswork. If a claim is vague, shifting, or casually reworded, they’ll go with what’s written down not what’s implied.
For HR, this means precision matters. When dealing with internal grievances or formal claims, pay attention to the wording, timing, and format because the tribunal definitely will.
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.
