Marston Holdings Wins Appeal in Sex Discrimination and Unfair Dismissal Case
Marston Holdings overturns a prior tribunal decision regarding indirect sex discrimination and unfair dismissal claims brought by Mrs A Perkins. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) found errors in the initial judgment.
• public
Marston Holdings Succeeds in Employment Appeal Tribunal
Marston (Holdings) Ltd has won its appeal against a previous Employment Tribunal (ET) ruling in the case of Marston (Holdings) Ltd v Mrs A Perkins. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) found that the original ET judgment contained errors of law regarding indirect sex discrimination and unfair dismissal.
Background of the Case
Mrs A Perkins initially brought claims of indirect sex discrimination and unfair dismissal against Marston Holdings. Her discrimination claim centred around a requirement to travel significant distances as part of her role, which she argued disadvantaged her due to childcare responsibilities. She also claimed she was unfairly dismissed.
Indirect Sex Discrimination Claim
The EAT found that the original ET ruling had not properly considered whether the alleged group disadvantage was intrinsic to the travel requirement, or simply an obvious consequence. The EAT also stated that the ET failed to sufficiently engage with the application of the travel provision as a general rule, instead focusing primarily on its impact on Mrs Perkins specifically.
Unfair Dismissal Claim
Regarding the unfair dismissal claim, the EAT noted that while Mrs Perkins had initially accepted that her dismissal was due to redundancy, the ET later ruled that she should not be bound by this statement. The ET ultimately concluded that she had not been made redundant and that Marston Holdings had failed to demonstrate a fair reason for her dismissal. The EAT determined it was unfair of the ET to change this course without first allowing both parties to discuss this issue. Furthermore, the EAT noted the ET’s findings did not properly address the arguments put forward by Marston Holdings.
EAT's Decision
The Honourable Mrs Justice Eady DBE, presiding over the EAT, allowed Marston Holdings' appeal. The case has been remitted back to the Employment Tribunal for reconsideration in light of the EAT's findings.
Read the entire judgement here: Marston (Holdings) Ltd v Mrs A Perkins [2025] EAT 20
