Employment Appeal Tribunal Upholds Ruling in University of Bristol v Dr David Miller Case
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has largely upheld a ruling that the University of Bristol discriminated against and unfairly dismissed Professor David Miller.
• public
Tribunal Confirms Liability Findings
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has delivered its judgment in the high-profile case of University of Bristol v Dr David Miller, upholding the majority of findings made by the original Employment Tribunal. The case centred on the summary dismissal of Professor Miller in October 2021 following comments he made regarding Zionism and the Israeli state.
The original Tribunal concluded that Professor Miller held protected philosophical beliefs under the Equality Act 2010. It determined that his dismissal, and the subsequent refusal of his appeal, constituted acts of direct discrimination because the university had been significantly influenced by the manifestation of these beliefs. Furthermore, the dismissal was deemed both unfair and wrongful.
Analysis of Misconduct and Causation
While the university challenged the liability findings, the EAT found that the original Tribunal correctly identified that a composite reason for dismissal existed. This included both the protected manifestation of belief and specific criticisms directed at students and student societies. The EAT agreed that the university failed to demonstrate that the dismissal was a proportionate response to the claimant's conduct.
Regarding the cross-appeal, the EAT dismissed all grounds submitted by the claimant. It maintained that the Tribunal was entitled to find that the claimant's aggressive discourse towards student groups was separate from his protected philosophical beliefs and provided a legitimate basis for disciplinary concern, even if summary dismissal itself was disproportionate.
Remedy Issues Remitted to Tribunal
The EAT allowed one aspect of the university's appeal regarding the potential for lawful dismissal in the future. The Tribunal had previously reduced compensation by 30 percent, estimating a chance that Professor Miller might have been dismissed fairly by October 2023 due to further social media activity. The EAT found the reasoning for this percentage lacked sufficient clarity.
Consequently, the EAT has set aside the original finding on this specific point and remitted the issue to the same Employment Tribunal to be re-determined during the upcoming remedy hearing.
Read the entire judgment here: University of Bristol v Dr David Miller [2026] EAT 84
