Key cases: the judgments that shaped your rights
The most widely used employment law judgments, explained in plain English — what happened, the rule each case set, and why it matters to you.
Employment rights in the UK come from two places: Acts of Parliament, and the judgments that interpret them. The cases below are the ones lawyers, judges, and ACAS advisers rely on most often — the judgments that defined the tests used in thousands of tribunal hearings every year.
You do not need to cite cases to raise a grievance or file a claim. But knowing the landmark behind your situation tells you what a tribunal will ask, what your employer must prove, and where the traps are. Each entry explains what happened, the rule the case set, and why it matters to you.
This is a summary of published judgments for general information — not legal advice on your situation.
Discrimination
These cases decide how discrimination claims are proved, how compensation for hurt feelings is measured, and who can claim.
Igen Ltd v Wong
What happened: several employees brought discrimination claims, and the appeal courts needed one consistent way to decide who has to prove what. The case is often known by its earlier name, Wong v Igen.
The rule it set: the two-stage burden of proof (now section 136 of the Equality Act 2010). First, you must show facts from which a tribunal could conclude, without an explanation, that discrimination occurred. Then the burden shifts to the employer to prove — not merely assert — a non-discriminatory explanation.
Why it matters: this is the engine of every discrimination claim, and the Court of Appeal noted that most of the roughly 20,000 discrimination cases a year involve exactly this framework. Your opening task is not to prove discrimination outright — only to raise facts that point to it. Our How Discrimination Is Proved guide walks through this step by step.
Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police
What happened: a police officer was bullied and discriminated against, and the appeal courts had to decide how much money hurt feelings are worth.
The rule it set: three compensation bands for "injury to feelings" — lower, middle, and upper — depending on how serious and prolonged the treatment was. The bands are updated for inflation each year.
Why it matters: when you value your discrimination claim or judge a settlement offer, the Vento bands are the yardstick. Most ordinary one-off incidents sit in the lower band; sustained campaigns reach the upper band.
Coleman v Attridge Law
What happened: Sharon Coleman was treated badly at work because she was the main carer for her disabled son. She was not disabled herself.
The rule it set: direct discrimination by association is unlawful — you are protected when you are treated badly because of someone else's protected characteristic.
Why it matters: carers of disabled relatives, partners in mixed-race relationships, and anyone targeted because of who they stand by can claim, even without the characteristic themselves.
Chief Constable of Norfolk v Coffey
What happened: a police officer with mild hearing loss was refused a transfer because the force assumed her condition would worsen into a disability. It never had.
The rule it set: discrimination by perception is unlawful — being treated badly because your employer wrongly assumes you have a protected characteristic is direct discrimination.
Why it matters: you do not need to actually be disabled, gay, or of a particular religion. If the employer's mistaken assumption drove the treatment, that is enough.
CLFIS (UK) Ltd v Reynolds
What happened: a senior consultant was dismissed by an innocent decision-maker who relied on negative reports influenced by her age, written by others behind the scenes.
The rule it set: in discrimination claims, only the decision-maker's motivation counts for the dismissal itself. The remedy is to treat the biased report as a separate act of discrimination by the person who wrote it — and name them in the claim.
Why it matters: this is the "tainted information" trap. If a hostile line manager poisoned the process, you must claim against their act, not just the dismissal. Our Who to Name in Your Claim guide explains how.
Zafar v Glasgow City Council
What happened: an employee was treated unfairly, and the tribunal was asked whether unfair treatment automatically meant discrimination.
The rule it set: unfairness and discrimination are separate questions requiring separate findings. An employer can behave badly without discriminating — so something more than unfairness must point to the protected characteristic.
Why it matters: it works both ways. You cannot win just by showing you were treated unfairly — but your employer cannot escape a discrimination finding just by proving their process was technically fair.
Wakeman v Quick Corporation
What happened: a manager was paid less than colleagues and could not point to a real person in identical circumstances to compare himself with.
The rule it set: you can rely on a hypothetical comparator — how a real or imagined person without your characteristic would have been treated. You do not need to find an actual colleague in the same position.
Why it matters: the absence of a real-world comparator is never fatal to a direct discrimination claim. Tribunals routinely reason from how others "would have been" treated.
Meek v City of Birmingham District Council
What happened: an employee lost at tribunal and appealed because the tribunal's written decision did not properly explain its reasoning.
The rule it set: tribunals must give proper, intelligible reasons for their decisions — enough for the parties to understand why they won or lost on each issue.
Why it matters: if you lose and the judgment is thin or skips key issues, inadequate reasoning is itself a ground of appeal. Well-reasoned findings, by contrast, are very hard to overturn.
The craft of proving discrimination: three lessons from the appeal cases
The appeal courts repeat three practical lessons about how discrimination is actually proven — and they are built into every toolkit on this site:
Discrimination is usually covert. As the EAT put it, "it is the covert rather than the overt act which is likely to provide evidence of discrimination." Tribunals may — and often must — infer discrimination from a pattern of circumstantial evidence, which is why contemporaneous records and data requests matter so much.
Plead every act specifically. The EAT overturned a race discrimination finding because the tribunal had not identified the particular acts it relied on — acts that had never been pleaded. Every incident you rely on must be individually identified, dated, and described.
Keep every claim alive. Tribunals must not cut down the scope of your claim at case management — the EAT has said restricting the complaints you can pursue risks denying access to justice and an effective remedy. If a judge suggests trimming your claim, this is the answer.
Unfair & constructive dismissal
The tests tribunals apply to almost every dismissal case come from these four judgments.
British Home Stores v Burchell
What happened: an employee was dismissed for alleged dishonesty, and the tribunal had to decide how much proof an employer needs.
The rule it set: the three-part "Burchell test" for misconduct dismissals — the employer must show it genuinely believed the misconduct happened, had reasonable grounds for that belief, and reached it after a reasonable investigation.
Why it matters: your employer does not have to prove you did it — but they must show a fair investigation and genuine belief. A stitch-up with no investigation fails this test.
Iceland Frozen Foods v Jones
What happened: a shift supervisor was dismissed and the tribunal had to decide how harsh is too harsh.
The rule it set: the "band of reasonable responses" — a dismissal is fair if it falls within the range of responses a reasonable employer could have taken, even if another employer would have been more lenient.
Why it matters: tribunals cannot simply substitute their own view. Your strongest route is usually attacking the process — the investigation, warnings, and consistency — not just the harshness of the outcome.
Polkey v AE Dayton Services
What happened: a van driver was made redundant with no warning or consultation whatsoever — the decision was simply announced.
The rule it set: skipping a fair procedure can make a dismissal unfair even if the outcome was inevitable. However, if consultation would have made no difference, compensation can be reduced to reflect that (the "Polkey deduction").
Why it matters: procedure matters in its own right. If your employer went through the motions of a sham process, this case is the foundation of your argument.
Western Excavating v Sharp
What happened: an employee resigned and claimed he had been forced out — the courts had to define when resignation counts as dismissal.
The rule it set: constructive dismissal requires a fundamental breach of contract by the employer. The employee must resign in response to that breach, without unreasonable delay.
Why it matters: "my boss was horrible" is not enough. You need a serious breach — bullying, a unilateral pay cut, destroyed trust — and you must not wait too long before walking out.
Whistleblowing
Two cases define what counts as public interest and what happens when managers manipulate a dismissal.
Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed
What happened: an estate agent reported that the company's accounts were being manipulated, affecting the commission of around 100 managers including himself.
The rule it set: a disclosure can be "in the public interest" even when it also affects you personally. The test is whether you reasonably believed it served a wider interest — a group of colleagues can be enough.
Why it matters: employers often argue a disclosure was "just a personal grievance." This case is the answer: mixed motives do not destroy protection.
Royal Mail Ltd v Jhuti
What happened: a whistleblower's line manager hid the real reason for her dismissal and guided an innocent manager into dismissing her for poor performance.
The rule it set: unlike discrimination claims, in automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing the hidden manipulator's motive can be attributed to the employer. The dismissal itself can be unfair even when the decision-maker was innocent.
Why it matters: if you were pushed out for whistleblowing by someone pulling strings behind the scenes, you do not face the tainted-information trap that catches discrimination claimants.
Contracts & employment status
What your contract really says, and whether you count as a "worker" with rights at all.
Malik v BCCI
What happened: employees of the collapsed, corrupt BCCI bank argued their careers were ruined by association with it.
The rule it set: every employment contract contains an implied duty of mutual trust and confidence — employers must not, without reasonable cause, behave in a way calculated to destroy the working relationship.
Why it matters: this is the legal foundation of most constructive dismissal claims and bullying cases. Sustained unreasonable treatment breaches your contract even if no single written term mentions it.
Autoclenz v Belcher
What happened: car valeters' contracts said they were self-employed with no obligation to work — but in reality they worked set hours under full company control.
The rule it set: tribunals look at the reality of the working relationship, not just the paperwork. Contract terms that do not reflect the genuine agreement can be disregarded.
Why it matters: a contract calling you a "contractor" does not make you one. If the day-to-day reality looks like employment, you may have employment rights regardless of what you signed.
Uber BV v Aslam
What happened: Uber drivers argued they were "workers" entitled to minimum wage and holiday pay; Uber said they were independent businesses.
The rule it set: the drivers were workers. Courts must start from the purpose of employment protection law — protecting people in a subordinate position — and look past contractual labels to who really controls the work.
Why it matters: the landmark gig-economy ruling. If a platform or company controls your prices, your work, and your terms, you may be a worker with full rights to holiday pay and the minimum wage.
Pay, holiday & working time
Two cases transformed what holiday pay means and who accrues it.
HMRC v Stringer
What happened: workers on long-term sick leave were told they had lost their annual leave because they had not been at work.
The rule it set: holiday entitlement continues to accrue during sick leave, and workers must be allowed to take it later or be paid for it on termination.
Why it matters: if you have been off sick long-term, you have not lost your holiday. On leaving a job, you can claim payment for untaken leave that built up while you were absent.
Bear Scotland v Fulton
What happened: workers regularly did overtime, but their holiday pay was calculated on basic salary only.
The rule it set: regular overtime and certain allowances must be included in holiday pay. However, a gap of more than three months between underpayments can break the "series" of deductions and limit how far back a claim reaches.
Why it matters: if overtime is a regular part of your pay packet, your holiday pay should reflect it. And if you are owed money, claim promptly — long gaps can cut off earlier arrears.
Redundancy
One judgment still defines what a fair redundancy looks like.
Williams v Compair Maxam
What happened: redundant workers were selected by managers simply picking names, with no objective criteria, no warning, and no consultation.
The rule it set: the core principles of fair redundancy — warn and consult employees, use objective selection criteria, apply them fairly, and look for alternative work.
Why it matters: forty years on, tribunals still measure redundancy processes against these principles. If your selection was a closed-door decision with vague criteria, this case is your benchmark. Our Redundancy Pathway guide applies it step by step.
Know the cases. Now build the claim.
Our step-by-step legal processes guide shows how these judgments fit into grievances, Acas Early Conciliation, and the tribunal itself.