Employment Appeal Tribunal dismisses claim as new arguments cannot be raised on appeal
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has dismissed an appeal, confirming that parties cannot introduce new legal arguments that were not raised in the original tribunal.
• public
Tribunal reinforces principle of finality in litigation
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has dismissed an appeal brought by an employee against the London Ambulance Service NHS Trust. His Honour Judge James Tayler, Deputy President, confirmed that the claimant could not rely on arguments that were not presented during the initial Employment Tribunal proceedings.
The case, Miah v London Ambulance Service NHS Trust [2026] EAT 147, centred on a dispute regarding "disruption payments" for shifts worked over the 2021 Christmas period. The claimant originally argued that these payments should apply to core shifts. However, after failing at the tribunal, he attempted to introduce a new "conversion argument" on appeal, suggesting the shifts should have been recorded as overtime rather than core shifts.
EAT clarifies limits on appeals
In his judgment, Judge Tayler highlighted the importance of finality in litigation. He noted that the Employment Tribunal is the appropriate venue for resolving employment disputes, not a starting point for ongoing litigation. The EAT is not a place for parties to have a "second go" at arguments they regret failing to advance at the first hearing.
The judge also addressed the procedural requirements for introducing new arguments. Under Section 8.13 of the EAT Practice Direction, an application must be made to raise a new point, and such instances are permitted only in exceptional circumstances. The claimant failed to make this application, and no such circumstances existed in this case.
Furthermore, the court noted that allowing the new argument would have necessitated a further hearing and additional evidence, which contradicts the need for efficient dispute resolution. The judgment also rejected the claimant's request for a preparation time order, as there was no valid basis for such an application.
Read the entire judgment here: Miah v London Ambulance Service NHS Trust [2026] EAT 147
