Aslam v Transport UK London Bus Ltd [2025] EAT 113: A Critical Reminder on Pleadings, Victimisation and Justice

Introduction

The Employment Appeal Tribunal’s decision in Aslam v Transport UK London Bus Ltd (formerly Abellio) [2025] EAT 113 offers crucial guidance for both claimants and respondents. It affirms that justice ultimately prevails when tribunals focus on the substance of a case, not merely technicalities. But it also shows how much smoother the process could have been if the claimant’s ET1 had expressly pleaded both limbs of victimisation under the Equality Act 2010 from the outset.

At the same time, the case stands as a clear warning to employers: do not assume that the absence of a particular legal label in the ET1 will defeat a claim where the pleaded facts already encompass it.

Background of the Case

Mr Aslam received a conditional job offer from Transport UK London Bus Ltd. During the recruitment process, he disclosed a prior Tribunal claim against Metroline and later emailed the employer raising a question about potential race‑based difference in treatment. Shortly afterwards, the employer withdrew the job offer.

He brought claims for direct race discrimination and victimisation. The Employment Tribunal dismissed discrimination but initially upheld victimisation—only to later reconsider and dismiss it, finding the particular successful victimisation limb (s27(1)(b)) had not been pleaded.

The Legal Issue: Victimisation Under s27 Equality Act 2010

Victimisation can arise where an employer subjects someone to a detriment:

• Because the person has done a protected act (s27(1)(a)), or

• Because the employer believes the person has done, or may do, a protected act (s27(1)(b)).

The Tribunal originally found liability under s27(1)(b). It concluded the employer acted to avoid “future issues”—a direct reference in internal emails—which could include potential discrimination complaints.

But on reconsideration, the Tribunal dismissed the claim, holding that only s27(1)(a) had been pleaded, and that limb failed.

The EAT’s Decision: Justice Restored

The EAT overturned the reconsideration decision and reinstated the original judgment upholding victimisation. It held that:

1. The Tribunal interpreted the pleadings too narrowly

The EAT found that the difference between the pleaded s27(1)(a) claim and the s27(1)(b) claim upheld initially was “wafer thin.” Both arose from the same facts already set out in the Grounds of Complaint, and no additional evidence was required.

2. All material facts for s27(1)(b) were already pleaded

The claimant had pleaded:

• The prior discrimination claim against Metroline

• The 11 June email raising concerns

• The employer’s internal communications (including the “future issues” email)

These formed the factual foundation for both victimisation limbs.

3. The Tribunal failed to apply the interests of justice test

Instead of weighing prejudice, fairness and practicality—as required under the reconsideration rule—the Tribunal treated the absence of a specific pleading as automatically fatal.

The EAT held that if the Tribunal had applied the proper balancing exercise, the only lawful outcome would have been to let the original judgment stand.

4. The respondent was not prejudiced

The respondent did not suggest it would have presented different evidence if s27(1)(b) had been expressly pleaded. In fact, the email evidencing their reasoning was already central to both sides’ cases.

Why This Case Matters for Claimants

Justice was done in the end

The EAT reinstated the original finding of victimisation and sent the case back for remedy. The claimant ultimately succeeded.

But the journey could have been far more straightforward

Had s27(1)(b) been expressly included in the original claim, the matter may never have gone through reconsideration or appeal. The EAT described the missing amendment as “so small” that it would have changed nothing in terms of evidence or preparation.

Lesson:Claimants should draft ET1s to include all applicable limbs of a statutory claim—especially in victimisation cases where s27(1)(a) and (b) often overlap in practice.

Why This Case Matters for Respondents

Do not overly rely on gaps in the ET1

This case warns respondents that a narrow or technical reading of pleadings may not succeed—particularly where the facts pleaded already encompass the employer’s actual reasoning.

The EAT emphasised that respondents cannot rely on a technical omission where:

• The factual basis is already pleaded

• No new evidence is required

• The essence of the claim is clear

• The employer knew the case it had to meet

In other words:A missing legal label does not guarantee safety if the substance of the claim is present.

Key Takeaways for Employers and Employees

For Employees / Claimants

• Clearly articulate all limbs of any discrimination or victimisation claim.

• Do not assume a tribunal will infer the alternative legal basis.

• A precise ET1 can prevent unnecessary satellite litigation.

For Employers / Respondents

• Focus on the facts and not just the technicalities of the ET1.

• Be cautious about reconsideration applications based strictly on pleading omissions.

• Courts may treat a narrow argument as insufficient where the essential case is clear.

Conclusion

The decision in Aslam v Transport UK London Bus Ltd reinforces a central principle of employment justice: tribunals must look at the real substance of what is pleaded and the real reason for an employer’s actions.

Justice was ultimately achieved—but the case demonstrates the importance of well‑drafted pleadings and the limits of technical arguments. Whether you are bringing a case or defending one, the ET1 and ET3 require clarity, accuracy and completeness from the outset.

Keywords: Employment Tribunal, victimisation claim, Equality Act 2010, ET1 pleadings, reconsideration, s27(1)(a), s27(1)(b), procedural justice, respondent strategy, employment lawyer, UK employment law.