Employment tribunals continue to deliver rulings that reinforce just how important procedural accuracy is for employers and advisers. From missed appeal deadlines to repeat bias allegations and misconduct appeals, the message is that process matters as much as substance.
In this month’s roundup, prepared in association with employment law platform LexHR, we review recent cases on late appeals, case management fairness and the consequences of live warnings. Experts say HR and legal teams need to be alert to time limits, adjustments and clear documentation throughout.
Appeal dismissed after delay in Mangwanya case
A claimant who missed her Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) deadline by just two days lost her entire appeal as a result.
In Miss G Mangwanya v National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, Mangwanya had brought race and disability discrimination claims which were dismissed in 2023. She appealed in 2025 but the appeal was lodged late.
 |
Get our essential daily HR news and updates. |
She and her partner, who helped with the case, both have medical conditions which they said affected their ability to meet deadlines. The judge acknowledged these challenges but found that the delay was mainly due to disorganisation and late instruction of counsel.
Extra time was refused. The tribunal noted the likely prejudice to Citizens Advice, which was entitled to treat the matter as closed, and said the proposed appeal lacked strength.
Key learning points
- Deadlines are applied strictly and even short delays can be fatal to a case.
- Poor organisation is not considered a good reason for missing time limits.
- Tribunal success is not only about legal argument but also procedural discipline.
Bias allegations complicate ongoing litigation in Ahmed v DWP
The Department for Work and Pensions is again defending case management decisions in long-running litigation brought by a familiar claimant.
In Mr H Ahmed v Department for Work and Pensions, Ahmed challenged how his case was being progressed including directions, listings and previous decisions. Longer standing issues involve claims of discrimination, victimisation and reasonable adjustments.
Bias concerns have surfaced previously in this litigation and the Employment Appeal Tribunal examined whether subsequent case management could appear unfair to an informed observer.
Key learning points
- Case management can itself form the basis of an appeal.
- Once bias is alleged, scrutiny of processes intensifies.
- Disability and timetable issues must be actively managed, not left to the tribunal to resolve.
Procedural complexity increases once trust breaks down. Early transparency and proper handling of grievances can prevent years of ongoing litigation.
Misconduct dismissal upheld in Taak v DPD
DPD successfully defended an unfair dismissal appeal brought by a senior manager dismissed for misconduct.
In Mr K Taak v DPD Group UK Ltd, the dismissal followed concerns over an unauthorised USB stick, car overpayment issues and failure to identify a speeding driver. All of this was considered against a live first and final written warning.
The EAT confirmed that the tribunal applied the correct legal tests on belief, investigation and fairness. There was no error significant enough to overturn the original ruling.
Key learning points
- A live final warning can legitimately influence dismissal decisions.
- Documented investigations and processes provide protection on appeal.
- IT and policy breaches can justify dismissal where trust and seniority are involved.
Speedy move from final warning to dismissal challenged in Sabourin case
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has asked a tribunal to revisit fairness findings in a capability dismissal carried out shortly after a final warning.
In Mr Peter Sabourin v BT Group Plc, the tribunal had accepted BT’s belief that Sabourin lacked capability after a performance improvement plan and warnings. He was dismissed around two weeks after the final warning.
On appeal, the argument was that the dismissing manager reused earlier evidence and did not assess performance in the short period after the warning. The EAT said this key argument had not been properly addressed and ordered the tribunal to consider it explicitly.
Key learning points
- Employers must show they have genuinely reviewed performance after a final warning.
- Tribunals must address central fairness arguments in their written reasons.
- Clear records on improvement or continued concerns are essential.
Strike out confirmed in Palmer case due to lack of viable claims
A healthcare assistant working on a zero hours basis failed to progress multiple claims due to employment status and lack of legal prospects.
In Miss Ann Palmer v Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust, claims including sexual orientation discrimination, holiday pay and arrears of pay were struck out at a preliminary stage.
Constructive dismissal and breach of contract routes were not available because Palmer was not an employee. Attempts to amend and add new allegations were rejected as having no reasonable prospect of success.
Key learning points
- Employment status determines which claims can be brought.
- Tribunals will strike out allegations with no legal foundation.
- Clear documentation on status and pay supports early case management decisions.
Bottom line for HR
Tribunals expect precision, organisation and proper process from day one. Late filings, vague claims or inadequate documentation can derail a case long before the facts are tested. Good preparation remains one of the strongest protections employers have in litigation.
