header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
23 January 2026 / Anjali Malik , Mukhtiar Singh
Issue: 8146 / Categories: Features , Discrimination , Employment , Disciplinary&grievance procedures , Equality
printer mail-detail

Close—but close enough?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
240526

Anjali Malik & Mukhtiar Singh consider the comparator question in discrimination claims
  • The Employment Appeal Tribunal in Jones and Ladbrokes set out a six-stage test for direct discrimination claims, emphasising the need to identify the relevant treatment before considering comparators.
  • Other recent cases show that tribunals increasingly investigate wider circumstances to identify evidential comparators.
  • Employers should expect scrutiny beyond named comparators, and maintain detailed factual records to demonstrate material differences.

Comparators have always been an essential element of direct discrimination claims, yet the approach to comparators continues to provide fertile grounds for appeal—and 2025 yielded a substantial crop of appeal decisions.

June decisions

Readers may recall that in Jones v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2024] EWCA Civ 1568, the Court of Appeal determined that the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), in upholding the employment tribunal’s (ET’s) decision that the claim was out of time, had erred by considering the claimant’s (C’s) suspicion of the necessary facts to establish discrimination as a relevant

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sidley—James Inness

Sidley—James Inness

Partner joins capital markets team in London office

Haynes Boone—William Cecil

Haynes Boone—William Cecil

Firm announces appointment of partner as UK general counsel

Devonshires—Nicholas Barrows

Devonshires—Nicholas Barrows

Firm appoints first chief marketing officer to drive growth strategy

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: CPR tweak closes third-party disclosure gap
A seemingly dry procedural update may prove potent. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold explains that new CPR 31.12A—part of the 193rd update—fills a ‘lacuna’ exposed in McLaren Indy v Alpa Racing
NLJ this week: Court of Appeals wrestles with Mazur fallout
The long-running Mazur saga edged towards its finale as the Court of Appeal heard arguments on whether non-solicitors can ‘conduct litigation’. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School reports from a packed courtroom where 16 wigs watched Nick Bacon KC argue that Mr Justice Sheldon had failed to distinguish between ‘tasks and responsibilities’
NLJ this week: Appeal court reins in ‘wrong defendant’ switcheroo

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

NLJ this week: Driving test fraudsters steer towards jail
Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
NLJ this week: Deepfakes demand data law muscle
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll