Employment Appeal Tribunal Upholds Tribunal's Witness Evidence Assessment in Discrimination Case
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has confirmed an earlier tribunal's assessment of witness evidence was lawful, dismissing an appeal that claimed an inflexible approach was used.
• public
EAT Backs Tribunal's Approach to Witness Evidence
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has confirmed that an Employment Tribunal (ET) did not make an error of law in its assessment of witness evidence during a complex case. The appeal, brought by Mrs M Anea, centred on claims of sexual harassment and constructive dismissal.
Mrs Anea had appealed an earlier ET judgment that dismissed her claims against OCS UK & I Limited and two of its employees, Mr Kevin Dove and Mr Andrew Sales. A key part of her appeal argued that the ET had adopted an inflexible rule in preferring the evidence of the respondents over her own where there was a dispute.
Credibility Assessment Under Scrutiny
The original ET judgment detailed a thorough assessment of the evidence. It noted that the claimant, Mrs Anea, gave evidence without additional witnesses, while the second and third respondents provided oral evidence on behalf of themselves and the first respondent. The tribunal found the evidence of Mr Dove and Mr Sales to be clear, uncomplicated, and consistent with each other and with contemporaneous documents.
In contrast, the ET found Mrs Anea to be a less straightforward witness. It highlighted instances where she appeared to embellish her evidence, referring to incidents not previously mentioned, and where her evidence was inconsistent with documentation. Crucially, the ET found it "quite unbelievable" that an alleged incident of sexual harassment on 17 September 2021 could have occurred without a formal complaint being made at the time.
Appeal Dismissed
His Honour Judge James Tayler, delivering the EAT's judgment, thoroughly reviewed the legal principles surrounding witness evidence assessment. He noted that while specific phrases in the ET judgment might initially appear to suggest an inflexible rule, a fair reading of the entire judgment revealed that the tribunal had considered all evidence presented and made findings of fact accordingly.
The judge stated, "On a fair reading of the judgment it is clear that this is an example of the type of iterative decision making I referred to in Edwards v Everard. At paragraphs 10 to 13 the Employment Tribunal clearly stated that it took account of all of the evidence presented to it and made its findings of fact on the basis of that evidence."
The EAT concluded that the original tribunal had not erred in law and that the appeal therefore failed. The judgment emphasised the significant deference due to the fact-finding role of first instance tribunals.
Read the entire judgment here: Mrs M Anea v OCS UK & I Limited and others [2026] EAT 21
