Ealing Council Employment Tribunal Decision Overturned on Appeal
An Employment Appeal Tribunal overturned a decision in favour of Ealing Council, citing legal errors and incorrect facts regarding time limits and disability discrimination claims.
• public
Ealing Council Tribunal Decision Faces Rehearing After Appeal
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has overturned a previous ruling in favour of Ealing Council, ordering a rehearing of key aspects of an employment tribunal case. The original tribunal had dismissed claims of disability discrimination and victimisation as being out of time.
Anonymity Order Granted
Initially, both the Employment Tribunal and the EAT rejected the claimant's request for anonymity. However, the EAT has now granted an anonymity order in light of new medical evidence detailing the detrimental impact of publicity on the claimant's mental health. The EAT has ordered that the employment tribunal reconsider its decision on anonymity.
Legal Errors Identified
The EAT found that the original employment judge erred in treating the claimant’s complaints of disability discrimination and victimisation as applications to amend the claim, rather than focusing on whether it was “just and equitable” to extend time limits under Section 123 of the Equality Act 2010. This misdirection was deemed a legal error.
Incorrect Finding of Fact
Furthermore, the EAT identified a material error of fact in the original tribunal's judgment. The employment judge had stated that the claimant carried out her duties in a new job “without any absences” after leaving Ealing Council. However, evidence suggested the claimant did have some absences due to sickness. The EAT ruled that this incorrect finding potentially influenced the judge's assessment of the claimant’s ability to bring a claim in time.
Impact of the Ruling
As a result of these errors, the EAT has remitted the time limit issues for a rehearing before a different employment tribunal. The original decision is quashed for the time limit considerations. The EAT dismissed one ground of appeal but allowed the appeal on grounds relating to the legal approach and factual inaccuracies.
Read the entire judgement here: JK v Ealing Council [2025] EAT 78
