Employment tribunal and court judgments | June 2026

The Claimant, Ms Griffiths, was a qualified social worker employed by Essex County Council. She was informed by her line manager that complaints had been made against her. Ms Griffiths was not provided with further information about these complaints, and neither was she made aware of or invited to participate in an investigation into these complaints by her employer. Ms Griffiths supervision meetings were cancelled for several months, but Ms Griffiths received minimal communication about the ongoing investigation. This included not being informed of the investigation outcome, which concluded that the complaints were unfounded.

The cumulative impact of this was an exasperation of  Ms Griffiths’ mental health, particularly worsening her anxiety and depression (both of which she had already been diagnosed with ahead of these incidents). Whilst Ms Griffiths submitted a grievance, she did not receive an adequate response and despite a subsequent appeal partially upholding some of Ms Griffiths complaints, no disciplinary sanctions were implemented.

Consequently, Ms Griffiths was signed off sick, later resigning and bringing employment tribunal proceedings for constructive dismissal and disability discrimination.

The ET found that Ms Griffiths had been constructively dismissed, as the council had fundamentally breached the implied term of trust and confidence, entitling her to resign.

Discrimininatory constructive dismissal had not been pleaded, however, the ET separately upheld a claim of indirect disability discrimination: by implementing a practice which did not permit a complainant to participate in the investigation, it put a disabled person at particular risk by causing a significant deterioration to mental health.

The Tribunal found that it was impossible to divide the effect of the indirect disability discrimination from Miss Griffiths’ decision to resign. As such, whilst an Unfair Dismissal alone would have capped the Claimant’s compensation (at the lower of a year’s pay or £118,223) the Claimant was awarded uncapped compensation (£153,906.54).

Both parties appealed the remedy, with Essex CC appealing the above decision specifically.

The EAT dismissed Essex CC’s appeal. As the ET had carefully considered whether Ms Griffiths loss of earnings flowed ‘directly and naturally’ from the discrimination, the EAT felt the ET was justified in its conclusion that there was a clear line between the discrimination and constructive dismissal.

As such, the EAT upheld the decision to award Ms Griffiths uncapped compensation.

This case highlights the risks of excluding an employee from workplace investigations, especially where they are known to suffer with mental health conditions. That process can place the disabled employee at a particular disadvantage and give rise to discrimination claims. Employers should ensure employees understand the nature of the complaints made against them and how any investigation will be handled, keeping the employee informed and providing updates, where appropriate.

Employers currently facing discrimination detriment claims need to be alive to the risk that a single act of discrimination during employment may attract uncapped compensation for loss of earnings (even where the discriminatory dismissal is not pleaded). Provided the Claimant can show that their loss flows naturally and directly from the discrimination,  uncapped compensation will be available to them.

Mrs Capeling, the Claimant, was employed as a National Sales Manager at TFX Group Ltd (a medical device manufacturer). TFX Group Ltd dismissed Mrs Capeling within her probationary period (specifically, within six months of her commencing employment) on the grounds of poor performance.

Mrs Capeling brought a claim for automatic unfair dismissal, alleging that she had been unfairly dismissed for whistleblowing, and alleging she had made three protected disclosures. Although ordinary unfair dismissal claims require two years of service, unfair dismissal for whistleblowing is automatically unfair- and such claims can be brought from the first day of employment. Although Mrs Capeling did not meet the length of service required to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim, she argued that she had been automatically unfairly dismissed for whistleblowing.

The Claimant relied on three alleged disclosures to bring an unfair dismissal claim, but all of them were dismissed by the ET.

Subsequently, Mrs Capeling brought an appeal relating to the third disclosure only: namely, Mrs Capeling alleged she had been unfairly dismissed for  telling her manager about her concerns that the absence of written contracts, within its Dispensing Appliance Contractors, created risks for patient safety.

The EAT dismissed Mrs Capeling’s appeal. Whilst the EAT accepted that the Claimant had informed management that some contracts were missing, the Claimant’s accompanying concern of the risk to patients was too broad and unspecified for this information to be a protected disclosure under the Whistleblowing Act. It was held to be a general assertion of information that did not cross the threshold.

The EAT emphasised that, to receive protection for whistleblowing, a disclosure of information must have both sufficient factual content and specificity to demonstrate an alleged wrongdoing. The EAT agreed that Mrs Capeling’s belief in a connection between the contracts and the health and safety of end users was not a reasonable one for someone in her position and with her state of knowledge.

For employers, this case is a useful reminder that whilst most unfair dismissal claims require employees to have met a specified length of service, automatic unfair dismissal can be brought from day-one of employment.

The decision is a straightforward application of established principles rather than a development of the law. Whilst the outcome should provide some reassurance that such claims are not necessarily brought with ease, the case does highlight that there is value in employers carefully recording each concern raised to them by an employee should the employer need to challenge the status of that claim as a protected disclosure for whistleblowing purposes (whether undermining its specificity or some other element of the alleged disclosure).

Professional Game Match Officials Limited (‘PGMOL’) supply referees for major football games in England. PGMOL engage two separate ‘pools’ of referees: one set of referees work for PGMOL under full-time employment contracts, and the other set work part-time (often alongside other full-time employment).

Referees are aligned to matches through a management system used by PGMOL. A referee will accept a match to be booked onto the event, but both PGMOL and the referees can cancel this booking.

PGMOL have historically treated their part-time pool of referees as self-employed and accordingly have never treated the fees paid to these referees as employment income. HMRC recently challenged this, alleging that the part-time referees constitute employees, rather than self-employed individuals.

A decision had to be made as to whether the relationship between PGMOL and the part-time referees constituted one of employment: specifically, the Tribunal needed to decide whether there was:

• Mutuality of obligation: in return for being paid by PGMOL, the referees were obliged to fulfil specific duties; and

Control: PGMOL needed to exercise a sufficient framework of control over the referees.

The First Tier Tribunal felt that both PGMOL and the referees’ ability to cancel shifts meant there was no mutuality of obligation. Further, there was an insufficient degree of control, and as such, no employment relationship.

The Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal- whilst the Tribunal felt there was a sufficient degree of control, the Tribunal concluded that there was insufficient mutuality of obligation for the arrangement to constitute an employment relationship.

The Court of Appeal felt there was sufficient mutuality of obligation and control to constitute an employment relationship.

The Supreme Court focused on the mutuality of obligations within contracts governing individual bookings, rather than the wider employment, and concluded that this criterion was met.

Further, the Supreme Court felt that, in the circumstances, there was sufficient control by PGMOL: the referees were bound by contractual obligations to meet standards outlined within a match-day procedures document as well as a code of conduct.

This decision was reached by the Supreme Court in 2024, but the case was remitted to the First Tier Tribunal by the Supreme Court.

Despite the Supreme Court having found mutuality of obligation and control to be satisfied, the First Tier Tribunal concluded that the referees were not employees for tax purposes, because viewed holistically, the engagements were contracts for services not contracts of employment, highlighting the following factors:

• There was no ongoing obligation between PGMOL and the referees;
• The engagements were short-term;
• Referees retained a freedom to decline and cancel bookings; and
• Many of the part-time referees had other full-time employment, which they treated as their primary careers.

The decades of litigation preceding this outcome demonstrates that assessing whether there is an ’employment relationship’ is a complex exercise. Although this case is not a binding authority, it will be influential, especially to taxpayers, advisers and HMRC.

The fact that the existence of minimum mutuality and control does not predetermine the outcome for employment status is an enormous practical point. This decision suggests that the real battleground has simply moved to stage three of the multi-factor test – the consideration that all other terms and practical realities of the contract point toward an employer-employee relationship.

At present, there are three statuses of employment: employee, self-employed and worker and an employee has significantly more rights than the other categories. There has also been discussion around the Labour party removing the ‘worker’ category (although action against this has halted). Accordingly, it is crucial that employers do not inadvertently and unintentionally engage individuals such as consultants or contractors in employment relationships.

At the outset of any hire, employers need to be clear about whether there is an employment relationship- and this needs to be mirrored across contracts of engagement but also in the substance and practical realities of the relationship itself.