Employment Appeal Tribunal Dismisses Appeals in Security Vetting Discrimination Case
The EAT has dismissed both an appeal and a cross-appeal in a discrimination case centred on security vetting procedures and national security proportionality defences.
• public
Tribunal Maintains Deposit Order in Nationality Discrimination Claim
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has delivered its judgment in the case of JK v LM, effectively dismissing both the claimant's appeal and the respondent's cross-appeal. The case concerned allegations of direct and indirect nationality discrimination arising from the refusal of security clearance.
The claimant, a national of a foreign state, argued that his security clearance was wrongly refused. Following an internal appeal, the Security Vetting Appeals Panel (SVAP) recommended that the refusal should be maintained on national security grounds. The original Employment Tribunal refused to strike out the claim but issued a deposit order, concluding that the claim had little reasonable prospect of success due to the robust national security justifications provided.
EAT Upholds Independent Judicial Assessment
In his judgment, Mr Justice Mansfield addressed the claimant's argument that the Employment Tribunal had improperly outsourced its decision-making to the SVAP. The EAT rejected this claim, noting that the tribunal was entitled to consider the findings of a specialist panel while maintaining its own judicial independence. The judgment clarified that recognising the weight of expert national security advice does not equate to an abdication of the tribunal's duty to form its own assessment.
Furthermore, the EAT dismissed the respondent's cross-appeal, which had sought to strike out the claim entirely. The judge noted that the original tribunal had correctly balanced the proportionality test, taking into account the limited impact the security clearance refusal had on the claimant's ongoing employment status.
The decision reinforces the importance of the proportionality defence under section 192 of the Equality Act 2010 when public bodies navigate national security considerations. The case will now proceed to a further hearing to determine the specific details of the deposit order.
Read the entire judgment here: JK v LM [2026] EAT 144
