How tribunals decide what happened: credibility, demeanour, the burden of proof, expert and documentary evidence, and where the reasoning goes wrong.
A tribunal which refuses interim relief because the facts are disputed has identified the problem rather than answered it. Duffy v BXTR 3 Ltd t/a House of Gods [2026] EAT 119 holds that section 129(1) requires the summary assessment to be made, however sharp the conflict of evidence.
HHJ Auerbach's judgment in London Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Garrett [2026] EAT 77 holds that a descriptive belief cannot be a manifestation of a normative one — and shows how a discrimination claim can be decided by the way a belief is written down at a case management hearing.
HHJ Tayler's judgment in Clifton Diocese v Parker [2026] EAT 68 identifies three recurring errors in how tribunals apply the section 136 burden of proof in discrimination cases, and offers five sense-check questions as a sequential framework to prevent them.
The EAT Scotland resolves the composite liability question under s.47B(1A): an innocent decision-maker cannot be held personally liable for whistleblowing detriment on the basis of a tainted manager's motivation. Henderson v GCRM Ltd [2025] EAT 136 draws a clear boundary around Jhuti. And the IDS gloss identifies where that boundary may yet give way.
The Court of Appeal dismisses Seyi Omooba's application to reopen her refused permission to appeal, closing seven years of litigation. Lady Justice Falk delivers the clearest modern synthesis of the 'reason why' test in direct discrimination cases.
Employment practitioners routinely assess case prospects without reference to published tribunal statistics. And most would argue those rates are irrelevant. Evidence from investment analysis, geopolitical forecasting, and cognitive science suggests they are making a well-documented error.
A Property118 tax tribunal hearing exposes the problem of manufactured witness statements, a timely reminder that tribunals assess credibility by content, consistency, and logic, not by how confidently a witness performs in the box.
Mortera and Thompson's rigorous Bayesian analysis reveals when 'predicted' evidence provides stronger support than 'accommodated' evidence, with direct implications for how we evaluate competing narratives in employment tribunal litigation.
A masterclass in causation: HHJ Simon Auerbach's tribute to Sir Patrick Elias clarifies the 'true reason' for dismissal, the 'reasons why' test in discrimination, and the critical distinction between counterfactual and predictive remedy assessments.
A cross-sectoral analysis comparing the flaws of "point estimates" in financial forecasting (OBR fiscal headroom) and litigation risk assessment (percentage prospects), arguing for the use of uncertainty bands instead of False precision.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal clarifies the burden of proof for material factor defences and corrects a fundamental error in applying the Essop principle to indirect discrimination.
Analyzing the Court of Appeal's decision in Hare Wines Ltd v Kaur & Anor. The judgment clarifies the application of the 'sole or principal reason' test.
Clients often ask how I arrive at a '60%' or '70%' chance of success. This article breaks down the methodology behind legal probability.
How statistical errors and cognitive biases can derail disciplinary investigations. A lesson from criminal law applied to employment disputes.
Evidence: Weight, Credibility & Reliability · Burden of Proof · Causation