Employment Appeal Tribunal Refuses Bias Claim in NHS Trust Dispute
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has rejected an appeal alleging bias and seeking to exclude a previous judgment in a complex NHS employment case.
• public
Background to the Appeal
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has delivered its judgment in the case of Kumari v Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust [2026] EAT 111. The appellant, Dr Beena Kumari, sought the recusal of tribunal members, arguing that findings made in a separate case involving a colleague, Dr Benaris, created a real risk of apparent bias. Dr Kumari claimed that strong comments made by the Benaris tribunal regarding two specific reports would influence the outcome of her own proceedings.
Tribunal's Findings on Bias
Deputy Judge John Bowers KC upheld the original decision, confirming that the tribunal judge was correct not to recuse himself or the lay members. The EAT noted that the test for bias requires a fair-minded and informed observer to conclude that there is a real possibility of prejudice. The court emphasised that the mere fact of adverse findings in a previous case does not, by itself, justify a finding of bias. There must be "something more" to suggest that the tribunal cannot approach the new case with an open mind.
The judgment clarified that lay members are capable of deciding a case based on the specific evidence presented to them. Furthermore, the EAT found no error in the judge deciding the recusal application on the papers, noting that the appellant had provided comprehensive written arguments.
Admissibility of Previous Judgments
A significant aspect of the appeal concerned whether the Benaris tribunal judgment should be excluded from the appellant's hearing. The EAT confirmed that while there is jurisdiction to exclude such material if it leads to unfairness, it is not necessary to do so as a blanket rule. The court highlighted that a tribunal must rely on its own evaluation of the evidence, as outlined in recent Supreme Court guidance. Rather than barring the document, the EAT concluded it is appropriate for the tribunal at the final hearing to determine the relevance and probative value of the previous judgment on a case by case basis.
Read the entire judgment here: Kumari v Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust [2026] EAT 111
