Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT)

Not a second bite at the facts — the EAT exists to correct errors of law, and understanding that distinction is what separates a viable appeal from a wasted one.

What counts as a point of law?

Broadly: the tribunal applied the wrong legal test, misdirected itself on the law, failed to give adequate reasons, took into account something irrelevant or ignored something relevant, or reached a conclusion no reasonable tribunal properly directing itself could have reached on the evidence. That last category — sometimes called perversity — is deliberately hard to establish, because it is not an invitation to re-argue the facts.

What is the deadline for appealing?

The notice of appeal and the required supporting documents must be received complete by 4pm on the 42nd day after the relevant date. The 42nd day falls on the same day of the week, six weeks later. If the appeal arrives after that, the appellant must apply for an extension of time, and the EAT applies that discretion strictly.

When does the 42 days start running?

From the date the tribunal sent the judgment, or the date of any other order or decision being appealed. Where written reasons were requested — at the hearing itself, or in writing within 14 days of the judgment being sent — the period runs instead from the date the written reasons were sent. Amendments made in 2026 clarified this point, so it is worth checking the current rules rather than older summaries.

Do I need a lawyer to appeal?

No. Appellants can and do represent themselves at the EAT, and the tribunal is used to it. That said, the EAT deals in legal argument rather than factual narrative, and the discipline of identifying a specific error of law in a written judgment is different from presenting a case at first instance. Free assistance is available through the EAT's advice schemes and from law centres and pro bono services.

What can the EAT do if an appeal succeeds?

It can substitute its own decision where the outcome is clear on the findings already made, or, more commonly, send the case back to an employment tribunal to be decided again — sometimes to the same panel, sometimes to a freshly constituted one. It does not usually hear evidence itself, and it will not simply substitute its own view of the facts for the tribunal's.

Are there costs risks?

The EAT can make costs orders, but the position is closer to the employment tribunal than to the civil courts: costs do not follow the event, and orders are made where a party has acted unreasonably or where the appeal was misconceived. That is a meaningful risk for an appeal that has no arguable point of law, which is one reason the sift stage matters.

Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT)

Employment Tribunal · Glossary

Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT)

Not a second bite at the facts — the EAT exists to correct errors of law, and understanding that distinction is what separates a viable appeal from a wasted one.

Last reviewed: August 2026

Employment Tribunal track

Employment Appeal Tribunal

hears appeals from employment tribunal decisions in England, Wales and Scotland, but only on a question of law — not on whether the tribunal reached the right conclusion on the evidence.

Where this comes from

Employment Tribunals Act 1996

— establishes the EAT and its appellate jurisdiction.

EAT Rules 1993, rule 3

— the notice of appeal and the time for instituting it.

EAT (Amendment) Rules 2026

— clarifies when the appeal period starts where written reasons were requested.

Appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal

— gov.uk guide to appealing.

Employment tribunals decide facts. They hear witnesses, weigh documents, and reach conclusions about what happened and whether it was lawful. The Employment Appeal Tribunal does none of that. Its jurisdiction, under the Employment Tribunals Act 1996, is confined to questions of law, and its function is to decide whether the tribunal below went wrong in law — not whether it went wrong.

The distinction frustrates a lot of appellants, and understandably. A claimant who believes the tribunal simply did not believe the right witness has no appeal on that basis, because assessing credibility is precisely what the tribunal was there to do. An appeal succeeds where the tribunal used the wrong legal test, or gave reasons so inadequate that the losing party cannot tell why they lost, or reached a conclusion that no reasonable tribunal could have reached on the material before it.

That last route — perversity — is genuinely narrow. It is not enough to show the EAT might have decided differently. The threshold is that the decision was not open to the tribunal at all, and appeals framed as perversity challenges are refused far more often than they succeed.

How an appeal proceeds

Getting the deadline right

A claimant loses an unfair dismissal claim. The judgment is sent to the parties on Friday 8 May 2026 with reasons given orally at the hearing. She writes to the tribunal on 18 May — within 14 days of the judgment being sent — requesting written reasons. The written reasons are sent on 12 June 2026.

Because she requested written reasons within the permitted period, the 42 days runs from 12 June rather than 8 May. Day 42 is Friday 24 July 2026, and the complete notice of appeal with all required documents must be received by 4pm that day.

Had she not requested written reasons in time, the clock would have run from 8 May and expired on 19 June. This is the single most common way appeals are lost before they are heard, and the fix costs nothing: request written reasons at the hearing or within 14 days, and diary both possible deadlines until you know which applies.

Writing grounds that survive the sift

The sift is where most self-represented appeals end. A judge reads the notice of appeal alongside the tribunal's written reasons and asks a simple question: does this identify an error of law with a reasonable prospect of success? Grounds that describe how unfair the outcome felt, or that re-tell the events, do not answer it.

What does answer it is specificity. Identify the paragraph of the judgment where the error occurs, state what the tribunal did, and state what the law required it to do instead. “At paragraph 34 the tribunal asked whether it would itself have dismissed the claimant, rather than whether dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses; that is the wrong test, as set out in

Iceland Frozen Foods v Jones

” is a ground. “The tribunal ignored my evidence” is not, unless you can show which evidence, where it was addressed, and why the omission amounts to an error of law rather than a difference of view.

Inadequate reasons is a distinct and useful ground where it genuinely applies. A tribunal must explain why the losing party lost, in enough detail that the parties can understand the outcome. A judgment that states a conclusion without engaging with a central argument may be appealable on that basis, and the remedy is usually remission rather than substitution.

It is also worth being realistic about what winning achieves. Most successful appeals result in the case going back to a tribunal to be decided again. That is another hearing, more preparation, and more time, with no guarantee about the outcome. An appeal is worth pursuing where the legal error is real and material; it is a poor substitute for a case that was simply not accepted on the evidence.

Frequently asked questions

Sources & further reading

Think the tribunal got the law wrong?

Start My Claim helps you organise the judgment, the reasons and the timeline before any appeal deadline bites.

Last reviewed: August 2026.

References checked against the EAT Rules 1993 as amended by the EAT (Amendment) Rules 2026 and GOV.UK guidance as at 17 August 2026.

This page is explanatory only and is not legal advice. Start My Claim is self-service software, not a law firm — its tools help you build and run your own case.