The EAT (HHJ Auerbach) has handed down judgment in Phullar v OFSTED [2026] EAT 10.
Mrs Phullar, a cancer survivor, successfully appealed against the findings of the ET that she had not been unfairly dismissed, that her dismissal did not amount to an act of discrimination because of something arising from her disability and that there had been, save in two respects, no failure to make reasonable adjustments.
The EAT held that the ET had erred in its application of s15 Equality Act (unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of her disability) and had erred in failing to find that her dismissal was something arising in consequence of Mrs Phullar’s disability. The matter of whether that unfavourable treatment was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim was remitted.
The EAT further held that Mrs Phullar’s appeals against the reasonable adjustments and unfair dismissal findings succeeded on the basis of the ET’s failure to give Meek compliant reasons, the failure to make the required findings of fact, and the making of inconsistent findings without explanation. OFSTED’s limited cross appeal in respect of the two findings of failure to make reasonable adjustments also succeeded due to a failure of the ET to provide Meek compliant reasons. The unfair dismissal claims and reasonable adjustments claims were therefore remitted.
Given that the ET’s judgment was “so extensively flawed” and given that there was “such a paucity of requisite fact-finding”, the EAT held that remittal was to be to a differently constituted ET.
The judgment is a salient reminder to ETs of the need to make proper findings of fact, to set out the law properly and to provide reasons that address the key points and enable the parties (as well as those reading the judgment) to understand who has won or lost and why.
Nicola Newbegin represented Mrs Phullar before the EAT, instructed by Shantha David, Bruce Robin and Emma Pitfield of UNISON Legal Services.
You can read the full judgment here.
