Employment Appeal Tribunal Clarifies Rules on Pleadings for Litigants in Person
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has issued a significant ruling on the necessity of clear pleadings for litigants in person in discrimination cases.
• public
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has provided important guidance regarding the standards expected of pleadings in discrimination claims. In the case of Pekacar v London Borough of Islington and Others, Deputy Judge John Bowers KC addressed the complexities of identifying causes of action within narrative-style claim forms.
The claimant, a litigant in person who had brought multiple claims, appealed against an employment judge's decision to exclude certain allegations from the list of issues. The appeal highlighted the tension between ensuring access to justice for self-represented claimants and the requirement for clearly defined legal issues.
The EAT Ruling on Pleadings
While acknowledging the need for tribunals to be flexible with litigants in person, the EAT emphasised that claim forms cannot be a moving target. The judgment reinforces that a tribunal should not be forced to engage in an elaborate or disproportionately complex interpretive exercise to identify a claim.
In this instance, the EAT allowed one of the three disputed allegations to proceed, finding that the claimant had pleaded enough detail to suggest an implicit threat of redeployment. However, the EAT rejected the other two allegations, describing them as too obscure and noting that the tribunal should not have to search for a needle in a haystack.
Key Takeaways for Practitioners
The judgment serves as a reminder of the dangers associated with narrative-style pleadings. Even when a claimant is not legally represented, the essential factual elements of a claim must be clearly asserted. The EAT advised that while providing background is helpful, an ET1 form should conclude with a crisp and focused summary of the causes of action relied upon.
Ultimately, the ruling underscores that while courts will provide appropriate assistance to those without representation, it remains the claimant's responsibility to set out their case clearly to ensure it is properly considered.
Read the entire judgment here: Pekacar v London Borough of Islington and Others [2026] EAT 125
