M Mostafa v K Julier & Anor

For a case listed before 29 October 2024, panel composition may be reviewed where a material change in circumstances permits it. Where panel members were not booked and proceeding otherwise would cause significant delay, a judge may exercise discretion to sit alone without a party’s express consent. In that context, the judge need not give a self-represented party detailed advice about the role of non-legal members. A generalised challenge to the scrutiny of evidence, without particularity, raises no arguable error where the Tribunal’s reasons record its findings, legal directions and conclusions.

Mr Mostafa v Mrs Julier and Miss Slater concerned claims of direct race and religion discrimination dismissed by Employment Judge T Perry. Although the hearing had been listed before a full panel, no non-legal members had been booked, and the Employment Judge proceeded alone. A Deputy High Court judge refused permission to appeal on the papers. Mr Mostafa renewed his application, challenging the Tribunal’s power to change the panel, the adequacy of his consent and procedural fairness, and the assessment of evidence. The central question was whether those grounds disclosed an arguable error of law.

The renewed application for permission to appeal was refused.

1. The Employment Judge had proceeded under the transitional arrangements in paragraph 28 of the Joint Presidential Guidance on panel composition in the Employment Tribunals. Decisions made before 29 October 2024 by reference to the law then in force remained effective, subject to review where a material change in circumstances permitted it. The Guidance allowed flexibility to proceed with a judge alone where practical difficulty arose in finding members.

2. The failure to book members was capable of being treated as a material change. The Employment Judge had a broad case-management discretion to review the panel and proceed alone, including where retaining the listed panel would cause significant delay. The Guidance permitted that course even without express consent. Mr Mostafa therefore had no unqualified right to insist on a full panel.

3. The Employment Judge was not arguably required to give detailed advice about the role or impact of non-legal members. The Judge had informed the parties that members had not been booked, sought their views and recorded that Mr Mostafa was willing to proceed. The EAT accepted that this was permissible, notwithstanding his contention that he would have sought an adjournment had he understood the position differently. The grounds concerning consent, equality of arms and case complexity disclosed no arguable error.

4. The EAT could not locate the authority described as Patel v Keles and was satisfied that the cited case did not exist. In any event, the alleged proposition did not assist under the changed statutory regime and Guidance.

5. The complaint that important evidence had not been scrutinised was generalised and lacked particularity. The EAT endorsed the view that the Employment Judge had made findings of fact, directed themself to the law and given proportionate reasons. That ground also disclosed no arguable error.

1. Employment Appeal Tribunal: Caspar Glyn KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court judge, refused permission to appeal on the papers. Judge Keith refused the renewed application: [2026] EAT 122 .
2. Employment Tribunal: Employment Judge T Perry dismissed the claims of direct race and religion discrimination after hearing the case without non-legal members.