Case law library
Leading UK employment law cases explained
Understand the legal principles behind the cases Employment Tribunals use most often. Each explainer sets out the rule, the practical test, connected legislation and the official judgment.
- Leading judgments
- 27
- Subject areas
- 8
- Last editorial review
- 4 October 2026
Unfair dismissal and procedure
Employment Appeal Tribunal
British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell
[1978] UKEAT 108_78_2007
The established framework for deciding whether an employer fairly dismissed an employee for misconduct.
Read the case explainerCourt of Appeal
Sainsburys Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt
[2002] EWCA Civ 1588
Confirms that the range-of-reasonable-responses test applies to a misconduct investigation as well as the final sanction.
Read the case explainerCourt of Appeal
Taylor v OCS Group Ltd
[2006] EWCA Civ 702
Explains that dismissal fairness is assessed across the disciplinary and appeal procedure as a whole.
Read the case explainerHouse of Lords
Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
[1987] UKHL 8
Separates procedural fairness from the question of whether a fair process would have produced the same dismissal.
Read the case explainerConstructive dismissal
Court of Appeal
Buckland v Bournemouth University Higher Education Corporation
[2010] EWCA Civ 121
Confirms the contractual test for a fundamental breach and that an employer cannot simply cure it after the event.
Read the case explainerHouse of Lords
Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA
[1997] UKHL 23
The leading authority on the implied contractual duty of mutual trust and confidence.
Read the case explainerCourt of Appeal
Waltham Forest LBC v Omilaju
[2004] EWCA Civ 1493
Defines the role of a last straw in a cumulative constructive-dismissal claim.
Read the case explainerCourt of Appeal
Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
[2018] EWCA Civ 978
Provides a practical sequence for cumulative-breach and last-straw constructive-dismissal cases.
Read the case explainerDiscrimination and equality
House of Lords
Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
[2003] UKHL 11
A leading discrimination authority on detriment, comparators and identifying why treatment occurred.
Read the case explainerCourt of Appeal
Igen Ltd v Wong
[2005] EWCA Civ 142
Sets out influential guidance on the two-stage burden of proof in discrimination claims.
Read the case explainerCourt of Appeal
Madarassy v Nomura International Plc
[2007] EWCA Civ 33
Clarifies the facts needed before the burden of proof shifts in a discrimination claim.
Read the case explainerUK Supreme Court
Royal Mail Group Ltd v Efobi
[2021] UKSC 33
The Supreme Court's modern explanation of the Equality Act burden of proof.
Read the case explainerCourt of Appeal
Griffiths v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
[2015] EWCA Civ 1265
Explains how the reasonable-adjustments duty can apply to an attendance-management policy.
Read the case explainerCourt of Appeal
Ishola v Transport for London
[2020] EWCA Civ 112
Clarifies what amounts to a provision, criterion or practice in Equality Act claims.
Read the case explainerEmployment Appeal Tribunal
Allay (UK) Ltd v Gehlen
[2021] UKEAT 0031_20_0402
Shows why stale or ineffective equality training may not establish the reasonable-steps defence.
Read the case explainerWhistleblowing
Court of Appeal
Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed
[2017] EWCA Civ 979
Explains the public-interest requirement for a qualifying whistleblowing disclosure.
Read the case explainerCourt of Appeal
Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth
[2018] EWCA Civ 1436
Clarifies that a protected disclosure can contain both information and an allegation.
Read the case explainerUK Supreme Court
Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti
[2019] UKSC 55
Addresses a dismissal where the true whistleblowing reason was hidden from the formal decision maker.
Read the case explainerCourt of Appeal
Kong v Gulf International Bank (UK) Ltd
[2022] EWCA Civ 941
Explains when objectionable conduct associated with whistleblowing can be separated from the disclosure itself.
Read the case explainerEmployment status
UK Supreme Court
Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher
[2011] UKSC 41
Establishes that employment status depends on the real working arrangement, not contractual labels alone.
Read the case explainerUK Supreme Court
Uber BV v Aslam
[2021] UKSC 5
Applies the worker-status test to platform work and defines when Uber drivers were working.
Read the case explainerRedundancy
Employment Appeal Tribunal
Williams v Compair Maxam Ltd
[1982] UKEAT 372_81_2201
The classic guidance on consultation, selection criteria and fair redundancy selection.
Read the case explainerHouse of Lords
Murray v Foyle Meats Ltd
[1999] UKHL 30
Clarifies the statutory redundancy definition and the causal link between reduced work requirements and dismissal.
Read the case explainerTerritorial jurisdiction
House of Lords
Lawson v Serco Ltd
[2006] UKHL 3
The foundational authority on when employees working overseas can claim British unfair-dismissal protection.
Read the case explainerUK Supreme Court
Ravat v Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Ltd
[2012] UKSC 1
Develops the sufficiently-strong-connection test for an employee commuting from Britain to work overseas.
Read the case explainerWorkplace procedure
Employment Appeal Tribunal
Talon Engineering Ltd v Smith
[2018] UKEAT 0236_17_2003
Shows that refusing a short disciplinary postponement can be unfair even where the statutory accompaniment rule is not breached.
Read the case explainerEmployment Appeal Tribunal
Toal v GB Oils Ltd
[2013] UKEAT 0569_12_2205
Confirms that an employer cannot reject a qualifying companion merely because it considers the worker's choice unreasonable.
Read the case explainerHow to use these explainers
Start with the legal test, then compare it with the facts and evidence in your own dispute. A case can explain the law without predicting your result. Employment Tribunal decisions turn on their particular facts, and later legislation or appellate decisions may change how an authority applies.
These pages provide general legal information, not legal advice. Follow the official judgment link and check current legislation before relying on a proposition.