Articles

Employers beware – balancing prejudice is no quick save for extending time for submitting a response when contumelious conduct is found.

Lachlan Wilson considers the judgment of HHJ Tayler in Costco Wholesale UK Ltd v Mr Jaiden Nash [2026] EAT 85.

Jo Laxton analyses London Borough of Ealing & Ors. v Pauline Peace [2026] EAT 81 and the principles that should be addressed in considering changes to pleaded cases.

The correct approach expects a proper consideration of the matters set out in Selkent Bus, which HHJ Tayler approved when he determined Vaughan. Notably, the Respondent having some notice is not a substitute for full consideration of an amendment application.

Robin Pickard analyses London Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Garrett [2026] EAT 77, which highlights that where a non-protected belief is said to be a manifestation of a protected belief, the test in Eweida (“intimately linked”) needs to be addressed with precision.

Joseph England reviews the case of Cunningham v BBC [2026] EAT 92, which highlights the need for employers to seek clarification when being put on notice of a potential disability in a OH report or by an employee, to avoid a finding of constructive knowledge.

John explores Court of Appeal case, Magic Investments SA v Broadbent and The Greater Good Fresh Brewing Co Limited [2026] EWCA Civ 711, where a contractual term has more than one possible meaning. He looks at how the court concluded interpretation best fits the contract as a whole and reflects commercial common sense, while also clarifying aspects of unfair prejudice claims.

John examines the recent case of Song & Zhao v Smith & Ors [2026] EWCA Civ 719, in which a shareholder who continued pursuing business opportunities after a joint venture partner withdrew from the company. In this case the court considered if they breached their fiduciary duties by not accounting for profits to the company, and whether that conduct amounted to unfair prejudice against the other shareholder.

Grace Holden analyses and summarises the cases of Deans v RBL Law Ltd et al [2026] EAT 76 and Harkins v Marks & Spencer PLC [2026] EAT 70, two recent judgments by HHJ Tayler that have provided helpful clarification on the procedure to follow when bringing and responding to appeals in the EAT.

Eaindra Cho reviews L Tarbuc v Martello Piling Limited [2026] EAT 58, a case which highlights that the inadmissibility of 'protected conversations' under section 111A only applies to ordinary unfair dismissal claims and not to other claims, like discrimination or unauthorised deductions from wages.

Gareth Graham analyses the case of Kankanalapalli v Loesche Energy Systems Ltd [2026] EAT 49, in which the EAT concludes that labelling a job offer as ‘conditional’ does not necessarily prevent a binding contract being entered into.

Simon Tibbitts examines DHL Services Ltd v Pawal Ignatowicz [2026] EAT 74, in which the EAT explores the differences between basic and compensatory fault reductions in practice and highlights how conduct after even an ET finding to reinstate could end up being considered when assessing the practicability of reinstatement.

Alex Leonhardt analyses the case of McKenzie v First Greater Western Limited [2026] EWHC 868 (KB), in which the High Court considered the principles governing injunctions to restrain employers proceeding with disciplinary processes.

Jack and Matthew offer useful best-practice guidance in relation to making applications to admit fresh evidence in appeal cases.