Employment Appeal Tribunal confirms limits on tribunal duty to assist litigants in person
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has clarified that tribunals are not required to formulate alternative legal cases for litigants who reject prior procedural guidance.
• public
Tribunal impartiality and the duty to assist
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has issued a significant ruling regarding the boundaries of a tribunal's duty to assist litigants in person. The case of Nagra v Unipart Group Ltd [2026] EAT 157 highlights that while tribunals must provide appropriate assistance, they must also maintain impartiality and respect a party's autonomy in how they choose to advance their case.
Mr Nagra, who represented himself, brought claims against Unipart Group Ltd (UGL) and Supply Chain Coordination Limited (SCCL). He argued that he was directly employed by SCCL and that UGL acted as its agent. Throughout the proceedings, he maintained this stance despite an Employment Judge previously explaining the potential relevance of contract-worker provisions under section 41 of the Equality Act 2010.
EAT dismisses appeal
On appeal, Mr Nagra contended that the tribunal should have proactively raised and determined a claim under section 41 of the Equality Act, even though he had not pleaded it and had previously declined to adopt such a case when it was identified to him at a case management hearing.
Deputy Judge of the High Court, Marcus Pilgerstorfer KC, dismissed the appeal. The judgment affirmed that tribunals are not required to take proactive steps to prompt modifications to a case when that would risk entering the arena or abandoning impartiality. The court noted that the tribunal's obligation to assist a litigant is not unlimited, particularly when the litigant has already been alerted to a potential legal route but chooses to pursue a different strategy.
Key takeaways for employment law
The EAT emphasised that a litigant's autonomy in making forensic decisions must be respected. Once a tribunal has provided appropriate guidance, it is not obliged to formulate or determine alternative legal arguments on behalf of a party who consciously chooses not to rely on them. The decision reinforces that tribunals must balance their duty to assist unrepresented parties with the fundamental requirement to remain fair and impartial to all sides.
Read the entire judgment here: Nagra v Unipart Group Ltd [2026] EAT 157
