Recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) rulings have revisited several complex areas of employment law, including secondment arrangements, dismissal reasoning, discrimination tests and whistleblowing protections. Across six cases, the court examined how tribunals apply legal principles to questions of status, process and statutory interpretation in day-to-day workplace disputes.
In this month’s roundup, prepared in collaboration with employment law platform LexHR, we explore decisions covering contractual continuity during secondment, composite dismissal reasoning, religious belief in recruitment, the handling of internal appeals and the scope of whistleblowing protection.
Taken together, the judgments reinforce a familiar message for employers and advisers. Outcomes often depend on applying the correct legal tests and maintaining procedural discipline, rather than relying on assumptions about how a case should be decided.
Secondment contract cannot transfer without consent
In Bank of Africa UK Plc & Ors v Hassani, a Head of HR seconded from Moroccan parent bank BMCE to Bank of Africa UK raised FCA compliance concerns and was repeatedly subjected to attempts by the host CEO to dismiss her. The EAT held that a contract of employment cannot pass from one employer to another without a novation consented to by all three parties; one party assuming control while the other disengages is not sufficient, and the automatically unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed with the whistleblowing detriment claims remitted to a different tribunal.
Key learning points
- Secondment arrangements must be actively maintained by the sending employer throughout, allowing practical control to drift to the host does not transfer the employment contract.
- A novation requires the employee’s own informed consent and cannot be inferred from changed behaviour alone.
- Correctly identifying the employer at the material time is a threshold issue in whistleblowing claims during a secondment; getting it wrong at the outset undermines the entire claim.
Composite dismissal reasoning must be clearly explained
In Elizabeth Chand v EE Ltd, a senior customer adviser with 16 years’ service was dismissed for gross misconduct after four incidents all characterised as fraud, none of which the tribunal found met that threshold. The EAT held a tribunal cannot substitute a narrower, more defensible version of the employer’s actual reason after the event; the reason relied on must be capable of sustaining the decision, and a finding of unfair dismissal was substituted.
Key learning points
- Decision-makers must articulate their actual reason with precision — the Burchell test applies to the reason as pleaded, not to the best reason theoretically available.
- Characterising misconduct as fraud without adequate evidential grounds carries significant risk, particularly where the employee has a strong service record.
- Where multiple incidents form a composite reason, each element must be supportable; one sound element cannot rescue the remainder.
Religious belief assessment must follow correct test
In Mr F Ngole v Touchstone Leeds, a qualified Christian social worker had a conditional job offer withdrawn after a mental health charity located press coverage of his legal dispute arising from Facebook posts describing homosexuality and same-sex marriage as sinful. The EAT upheld direct discrimination on the initial withdrawal but remitted the subsequent decisions, finding the tribunal had failed to distinguish between objecting to the beliefs themselves — which is unlawful — and addressing how those beliefs might be manifested when working with LGBTQI+ service users, which may be justifiable.
Key learning points
- Each step in a recruitment process following knowledge of a protected characteristic must be separately assessed and documented.
- Reputational concern about a candidate’s publicly known views is not a substitute for structured proportionality analysis applied to each individual decision.
- The distinction between holding a belief and manifesting it must be applied explicitly at every stage — conflating the two is an error of law.
Internal appeal flaws can undermine fairness
In Milrine v DHL Services Ltd, an HGV driver was fairly dismissed for medical incapability, but the appeal process disintegrated when the nominated manager declined to act without telling anyone, a replacement failed to attend and HR left the employee to reconvene proceedings himself. The EAT reversed the finding of overall fairness: the right of appeal is a substantive component of a fair dismissal under the Employment Rights Act, not a formality, and an employer cannot rely on its original decision where the appeal has collapsed through its own inaction.
Key learning points
- Responsibility for managing the appeal process rests entirely with the employer and cannot be transferred to the dismissed employee.
- Only a reasoned finding that an appeal would have been wholly futile prevents a finding of unfair dismissal where the employer has allowed it to fail.
- All appeal arrangements and changes must be confirmed in writing by the employer.
Whistleblowing protection extends to job applicants
In Miss Elena Bibescu v Clare Jenner Ltd, an accountant raised concerns about a subcontractor partly, the tribunal found, to discredit him personally, and the tribunal held the disclosure was unprotected because her motive was not genuinely in the public interest. The EAT held that this conflated two legally distinct questions: the statutory test asks whether the worker reasonably believed the disclosure was in the public interest, not why they chose to make it, and mixed or self-interested motives do not strip a disclosure of protection unless the public interest element is wholly illusory.
Key learning points
- An employer cannot treat a disclosure as unprotected because the person making it had personal grievances or mixed motivations.
- The public interest requirement is a test of the worker’s genuine belief assessed objectively, not a test of purity of purpose.
- Where a protected disclosure may be present, decisions to dismiss or impose detriment should be assessed against section 47B and 103A ERA before action is taken.
Flexible working PCP must be justified in practice
In Mrs Gemma Dobson v North Cumbria Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust, the second EAT appeal arising from a community nurse’s dismissal after refusing flexible weekend working, the EAT dismissed the challenge and provided detailed guidance on justification. Proportionality is assessed by reference to how the provision, criterion or practice (PCP) was actually applied to the claimant — not a theoretical diluted version of it — and documented attempts to accommodate the individual, even where declined, carry significant evidential weight.
Key learning points
- Justification must rest on specific operational evidence; general assertions of business need will not suffice, and the more significant the group disadvantage the more cogent the justification required.
- Where a PCP contains built-in flexibility, tribunals will examine how that flexibility was made available to the specific claimant in practice, not in theory.
- A contemporaneous record of accommodation attempts and outcomes should be maintained as a matter of course.
Bottom line for HR
Across employment status, disciplinary process, protected characteristics and whistleblowing, experts say these six decisions confirm that individual analysis at every stage cannot be replaced by general systems, composite reasoning or collapsed procedures. There are rarely shortcuts, they say, and the cost of overlooking the fundamentals remains high.
This round-up covers selected EAT decisions from February 2026. It is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice.
William Furney is a Managing Editor at Black and White Trading Ltd based in Kingston upon Hull, UK. He is a prolific author and contributor at Workplace Wellbeing Professional, with over 127 published posts covering HR, employee engagement, and workplace wellbeing topics. His writing focuses on contemporary employment issues including pension schemes, employee health, financial struggles affecting workers, and broader workplace trends.
- William Furney
- William Furney
- William Furney
- William Furney
