The tribunal cases from 2025 that are still costing employers in 2026
By the time an employment tribunal judgment is published, the damage has already been done.
The legal analysis is important, but it is rarely where organisations went wrong. The real failure usually sits much earlier: in how decisions were made, evidenced, communicated, and emotionally handled under pressure.
The cases influencing tribunal thinking in 2025 are a good illustration of this. While the legal principles are familiar, the patterns of organisational behaviour behind them are not improving at the same pace.
Below are five significant cases and appellate decisions shaping employment tribunal outcomes in 2025, and what they tell us about how people risk actually materialises in practice.
1. Higgs v Farmor’s School - belief, proportionality, and decision discipline¹
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Higgs v Farmor’s School continues to shape tribunal reasoning in 2025, particularly in cases involving protected beliefs, expression, and disciplinary action.
The Court reaffirmed that:
beliefs may be protected even if controversial
the real question is whether the employer’s response was objectively justified and proportionate
context, process, and reasoning matter as much as outcome
What is striking is not the legal threshold, but how often employers fail to evidence why a particular response was chosen.
In practice, tribunals are scrutinising:
whether alternative options were genuinely considered
whether decision-makers understood the scope of protection
whether disciplinary action reflected organisational values consistently
This is not about being “right” or “wrong” morally. It is about decision design. Employers continue to lose credibility where instinct replaces structured reasoning.
2. Afshar v Addison Lee Ltd — historic exposure and evidential drift²
Holiday pay litigation remains a live risk in 2025, particularly where organisations are uncovering historic non-compliance.
In Afshar v Addison Lee Ltd, the EAT considered unlawful deductions and the limits of retrospective recovery. While the case turned on technical questions of series and limitation, the underlying issue was governance failure.
What tribunals are increasingly alert to is:
informal acceptance of known risk over time
failure to correct exposure once identified
retrospective rationalisation rather than contemporaneous action
From a people-risk perspective, this is not a payroll problem. It is a decision deferral problem. Risk is rarely created by ignorance; it is created by delay.
3. Morais and others v Ryanair DAC — retaliation, industrial action, and organisational memory³
The Court of Appeal’s judgment in Morais v Ryanair has had a notable downstream effect on tribunal claims involving trade union activity and alleged detriment.
The Court confirmed that maintaining and using lists connected to industrial action can amount to unlawful blacklisting under the Blacklisting Regulations.
Tribunals in 2025 are applying this reasoning more broadly, focusing on:
what information was recorded
how it was later used
whether decision-makers appreciated its significance
The risk here is not malicious intent. It is institutional memory without governance. Once data exists, behaviour following industrial action is examined as a pattern, not as isolated acts.
This is a classic example of how operational decisions quietly become legal exposure.
4. Wainwright v Cennox plc — sickness absence, disability, and escalation failure⁴
Although first-instance, Wainwright v Cennox continues to be cited for its scale and for the tribunal’s criticism of how long-term sickness absence and disability were managed.
The award exceeded £1 million, but the legal principles were unremarkable. What concerned the tribunal was:
prolonged informal management
poorly evidenced consideration of adjustments
sudden escalation without clear rationale
inconsistent managerial handling
In 2025, tribunals are increasingly sceptical of employers who allow situations to drift and then attempt to “reset” through formal process.
This is not a technical failure. It is a failure of escalation control and decision timing.
5. For Women Scotland Ltd v Scottish Ministers - clarity, policy, and competing rights⁵
Although not an employment tribunal case, the Supreme Court’s decision in For Women Scotland Ltd v Scottish Ministers continues to influence employment disputes involving sex, gender reassignment, and single-sex services.
The Court emphasised statutory interpretation and legal clarity. For employers, the downstream issue has been operational rather than doctrinal.
Tribunals in 2025 are less interested in policy statements and more interested in:
how competing rights were balanced in practice
whether decision-makers understood the legal framework
whether frontline managers were equipped to apply it consistently
This case has reinforced a broader trend: policies do not protect organisations - decisions do.
The pattern tribunals are responding to in 2025
Across all five cases, the legal principles are stable. What is unstable is organisational decision-making under pressure.
Tribunals are repeatedly interrogating:
how decisions were reached, not just what was decided
whether evidence existed at the time, not after challenge
whether managers acted consistently or improvisationally
whether culture aligned with process
This is why so many cases are lost long before legal advice is sought.
Why this shapes how I work
My work does not sit in administrative HR, and it does not replace legal advice.
It sits in the space where:
decisions are being made in real time
emotion, pressure, and uncertainty are present
risk has not yet hardened into evidence
or escalation has already occurred and needs structure
That is why my work centres on two interventions:
Risk Triage — before issues escalate, when decision quality still determines outcome.
Case-Ready Pack — once escalation has occurred and clarity, structure, and defensibility matter.
Most HR reacts.
I design decisions that stand up later.
References
¹ Higgs v Farmor’s School [2024] EWCA Civ 1109
² Afshar v Addison Lee Ltd [2024] EAT 14
³ Morais and others v Ryanair DAC [2024] EWCA Civ 19
⁴ Wainwright v Cennox plc Employment Tribunal (2024), reported award exceeding £1 million
⁵ For Women Scotland Ltd v Scottish Ministers [2024] UKSC 16
