Employment Appeal Tribunal

This Overview provides guidance on the procedures in the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), including jurisdiction, time limits, submission of an appeal, preliminary sifting, preliminary hearings and track allocation, responding to an appeal, case management (as well as non-standard case management considerations), preparation for and procedure at EAT main hearing, settlement, withdrawal and consent orders, orders on outcome of an appeal, costs, interest, enforcement of awards, review of EAT decisions and appeals from the EAT.

The EAT exists and derives its substantive powers from statute. It is a superior court of record and of equivalent status to the High Court.

The EAT's central office is in London. Generally, hearings take place in London and Edinburgh.

The EAT has its own set of rules and also a Practice Direction (the Employment Appeal Tribunal Practice Direction 2024 replaced the 2023 Practice Direction with effect from 1 February 2025).

Jurisdiction of the EAT

There are a few types of applications that are made directly to the EAT but in the vast majority of cases the EAT is an appeal tribunal. Most appeals to the EAT are from decisions of employment tribunals,

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Employment News

Data by any other name—Court of Appeal reverses Upper Tribunal’s ruling on the protection of ‘personal data’ (DSG v ICO)

Information Law analysis: In this case, the Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal brought by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), holding that it is sufficient that data which has been subjected to unauthorised or unlawful processing by a third party still constitutes personal data from the perspective of the data controller, even if it is pseudonymised ‘in the hands of’ the data controller and therefore anonymised ‘in the hands of’ the attacker. Accordingly, the court held, the data controller is required to take ‘appropriate technical and organisational measures’ (ATOMs) to protect that personal data against such hackers, even where those third parties cannot themselves identify the individuals to whom the data relates. Even though this judgment is under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA 1998), this decision is significant as it confirms, in terms equally applicable to the United Kingdom General Data Protection Regulation, Assimilated Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (UK GDPR), that the scope of the security obligation is not diminished merely because stolen or exfiltrated data would be anonymised in the hands of the third party with unlawful access. This development expands and makes more pressing the obligation on controllers to assess and guard against a broader range of threats—including ransomware, data destruction, and bulk exfiltration, regardless of the attacker's capacity to re-identify data subjects. Written by Adelaide Lopez, senior associate at Wiggin LLP.

View Employment by content type :

Popular documents