Z Pekacar v London Borough of Islington & Ors

An employment tribunal must determine the claims in an ET1 by objectively reading the statement of case as a whole and in context. It need not reconstruct a claim through a complex interpretative exercise. A litigant in person may receive appropriate assistance and allowance for missing legal terminology, but must still plead the essential factual elements of the claim. An implicit threat of redeployment was sufficiently pleaded here; two other alleged complaints were too obscure to include in the list of issues.

Z Pekacar, who brought 13 employment claims, appealed a case management decision made at a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Quill at the Watford Employment Tribunal on 4 and 5 May 2023. His claims concerned his former employer, the London Borough of Islington, its current or former employees, and a barrister previously instructed by the Borough. Appearing in person below, he argued that three complaints had been pleaded but wrongly omitted from the list of issues, and that the Employment Judge had applied an overly restrictive approach to his pleadings. The central questions were whether the three complaints emerged from the claim forms and whether the judge had applied the correct approach to pleadings by a litigant in person.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The decision was overturned only in relation to the allegation of a threat of redeployment. The list of issues was to be amended to include an allegation of threatening and making arrangements for redeployment if the claimant failed to work in the office five days a week. The other two allegations remained excluded, and the general challenge to the Employment Judge’s approach failed.
2. The contents of an ET1 serve a necessary function: they set out the essential case. The Employment Tribunal must identify the issues through an objective analysis of the statement of case as a whole and in its proper context. The issues must emerge clearly; a tribunal need not undertake an elaborate interpretative exercise. It may clarify the scope of a case where appropriate, but a mere indication or possibility of a complaint is insufficient. The EAT followed the approach in Moustache v Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2025] EWCA Civ 185 and relied on the essential-case principle in Chandhok v Tirkey [2015] IRLR 195.
3. A litigant in person should receive assistance appropriate to the circumstances, and the tribunal should allow for the absence of statutory references or formal language. The required degree of assistance depends on the individual case. The allowance does not remove the need to plead the essential factual elements. The EAT applied the guidance in Drysdale v Department of Transport [2014] EWCA Civ 1083 and Pranczk v Hampshire County Council EAT/272/19. It also applied Adebowale in recognising that interpretation should not become disproportionately complex.
4. An Employment Judge should proactively clarify the substance of a complaint when it genuinely jumps out from the pleadings. The tribunal is not required to search diffuse material for a claim that is not clearly apparent. The EAT applied that guidance from McLeary v One Housing Group Ltd EAT/124/18 and endorsed the caution against narrative pleadings in C v D EAT/132/19.
5. The redeployment allegation was just sufficiently pleaded. Although the word “threat” did not appear, the reference to not seeking redeployment “at this time”, read with the pleaded material about office attendance and the possibility of redeployment, conveyed an implicit threat of direct race discrimination. The Employment Tribunal could decide at the full hearing whether a threat was in fact made.
6. The ICO allegation was not sufficiently pleaded: the paragraphs relied on, read together, did not set out its central factual elements. The personal-documents allegation was also too obscure; the diffuse material did not clearly explain its significance to a discrimination claim. The EAT considered that it had enough material to decide the redeployment issue itself, avoiding further delay.

1. Employment Appeal Tribunal — In [2026] EAT 125 , the appeal was allowed in part. The list of issues was to be amended to include the redeployment-threat allegation; the other two disputed allegations remained excluded.
2. Employment Tribunal, Watford — At a preliminary hearing on 4 and 5 May 2023, Employment Judge Quill considered the draft list of issues and claim forms. The citation for that decision is not stated in the judgment.