Legal Services for Employees and Employers
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS and APPEALS
Below you will find some recent Tribunal cases and findings. They serve as examples of what an employer or employee could have done before reaching a Tribunal.
AB v Graers Group Ltd (EAT, 2025)
The case centres on whether an employer can be held liable for harassment that happens outside the workplace, during an informal work‑related arrangement.
Background:
- AB was a hospitality agency worker.
- After missing her arranged transport to a shift, she accepted a lift from a colleague, CD.
- CD had previously sent her sexually suggestive messages while they both worked for the same employer.
- During the lift, CD drove AB to a remote location and sexually harassed her, including inappropriate touching and showing her a pornographic video.
- AB reported the incident to the police and her employer.
- The employer failed to investigate or support her.
Decision:
The Employment Tribunal accepted that harassment occurred but ruled the employer not liable, saying CD’s actions were not “in the course of employment”.
Employment Appeal Tribunal
The Employment Appeal Tribunal overturned that decision. It held that the tribunal had misapplied the legal test and should have considered whether CD’s behaviour had a sufficient connection to work, including:
- Their prior work‑related interactions
- The fact AB believed she was travelling to a shift
- The work‑related nature of the lift
The EAT emphasised that:
- “In the course of employment” must be interpreted broadly
- Employer approval or knowledge of the act is not required
- Conduct outside the workplace or working hours can still be work‑related if there is a nexus with employment
The case was sent back to the tribunal for reconsideration
Why it matters
This case widens the circumstances in which employers can be held liable for harassment. It reinforces that liability can extend to:
- Lifts to work
- Social events
- Off‑site interactions
- Informal arrangements connected to work
Despite CD's previous conduct, it is fair to say that AB accepted the lift to work as part of her employment and not as a social invitation.
Employers must take proactive steps to prevent harassment in all contexts, not just on‑site or during working hours.
Panayiotou v Kernaghan (The Chief Constable of Hampshire Constabulary) - (EAT)
Summary
This case focuses on whether an employer carried out a fair and reasonable investigation before dismissing an employee who faced allegations of misconduct.
Background
- Mr Panayiotou was a police officer accused of misconduct.
- The employer accepted the allegations largely at face value.
- Key evidence was not properly tested, and alternative explanations were not explored.
- The officer argued that the investigation was flawed, biased, and incomplete.
Initial Tribunal Decision
The Employment Tribunal found the dismissal fair, accepting that the employer genuinely believed the allegations and acted within the range of reasonable responses.
EAT Decision
The Employment Appeal Tribunal disagreed.
It held that the tribunal had failed to properly assess the quality of the employer’s investigation.
The EAT emphasised that:
- A dismissal can be unfair even if the employer genuinely believed the allegations,
- if the investigation itself was not reasonable, balanced, or thorough.
- The case was sent back for reconsideration.
Why it matters
This case reinforces that employers must:
- keep an open mind
- test evidence properly
- avoid assumptions
- investigate allegations objectively
- give the employee a fair chance to respond
A dismissal based on a flawed or one‑sided investigation is likely to be unfair — even where the employer acted in good faith.