In Mostafa v Julier and Slater, the claimant brought claims of direct race and religion discrimination, alleging that he had gone from being a frontrunner for a permanent role to not being interviewed because of his race and religion.
The hearing was listed before a full tribunal panel, but no non-legal members had been booked to attend. The employment judge treated this as a material change in circumstances and exercised discretion to proceed sitting alone.
The judge considered the discrimination claims and dismissed them, concluding that the claimant's treatment was unrelated to his race or religion.
The claimant appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). Permission was refused on the papers, and the claimant renewed his application at a hearing.
The claimant raised five grounds of appeal, four relating to the decision to proceed without non-legal members and one alleging that the judge had disregarded key evidence.
On panel composition, the EAT considered the Joint Presidential Guidance issued on 29 October 2024, which gave judges flexibility to proceed sitting alone where practical difficulties arose in finding members. The employment judge had applied the Guidance correctly.
The EAT found that the claimant had no unqualified right to a full panel. On informed consent, the judge had asked the claimant whether he was content to proceed, and the claimant had agreed. The judge was not obliged to give detailed advice about the role of...
FAR-RIGHT groups have been celebrating a fire at a Glasgow tenement amid false claims that it was being renovated to house migrants. At around 5pm on Sunday, fire crews were called out to the blaz...