Talwinder Singh Nagra v Unipart Group Limited

A tribunal must give a litigant in person such assistance as fairness requires, which may include clarifying a claim or issue apparent from the pleadings. It retains a wide margin of appreciation and must remain impartial. If a possible statutory route is identified and explained at an earlier hearing, and the litigant chooses to maintain a different case, fairness does not ordinarily require the tribunal to raise it again or formulate it on the litigant’s behalf. A separate, unpleaded cause of action is not one the tribunal must consider as a matter of course; fundamental fairness requires it only in an exceptional case where doing so is essential. The tribunal assesses the proceedings as a whole. Changes in duties, job title or pay do not alone establish a material change in genuine agency arrangements.

Talwinder Nagra worked for Unipart Group Limited (UGL) on an assignment arranged by recruitment agency RE People Limited. He maintained that Supply Chain Coordination Limited (SCCL) employed him and that UGL acted as SCCL’s agent. At an earlier case management hearing, an Employment Judge explained that section 41 of the Equality Act 2010 might provide a route for a contract worker to claim against a principal. Mr Nagra did not adopt that case. The Employment Tribunal dismissed his claims, finding that the agency arrangements were genuine and that he had not established employment by SCCL. After the appeal against SCCL was dismissed, Mr Nagra appealed against UGL. The principal issue was whether fairness required the Tribunal to raise and determine an unpleaded claim under section 41. The remaining grounds challenged findings about employment status, reasons and a later change in Mr Nagra’s role.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The Tribunal had acted within the wide margin available to it when deciding what assistance fairness required for a litigant in person.
2. Under Drysdale v Department of Transport [2014] IRLR 892, a tribunal must provide appropriate assistance, but must remain impartial and avoid injustice to either party. The appellate court gives substantial respect to the tribunal’s assessment. Moustache v Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2025] ICR 1231 confirms that the tribunal has no general duty to prompt a party to expand or modify a case. A different, unpleaded cause of action need only be raised in the rare case where the fundamental duty of fairness makes that essential: see also Cherrington v University of Derby [2026] EAT 107 and Whitaker v White Rose Academies Trust [2026] EAT 43.
3. Liability under section 41 of the Equality Act 2010 was apparent from the parties’ cases. The Tribunal had, however, identified and explained that route at the earlier case management hearing. Mr Nagra chose to continue on a different basis. The Tribunal was not required to repeat the explanation at the substantive hearing or formulate the alternative claim for him. The assessment properly took account of the proceedings as a whole. Although it is good practice to confirm the issues at the start of a substantive hearing, a failure to do so does not automatically establish an error of law. Eltek (UK) Ltd v Thomson [2000] ICR 689 showed that a tribunal may permit a relabelled claim in unusual circumstances; it did not require the Tribunal to introduce one here. Respecting the litigant’s choice also avoided the tribunal entering the arena, as explained in Dundee City Council v Malcolm UKEATS/0019/15.
4. The Tribunal was not required to determine an unadvanced section 41 claim or give reasons for rejecting it. Whether Mr Nagra’s contract with RE People amounted to employment for section 83(2)(a) purposes was left undecided. Any error on that point was immaterial: SCCL did not make work available to him and the other requirements for SCCL’s liability under section 41(5) were not met.
5. The Tribunal was also not required to determine an unpleaded case that UGL employed Mr Nagra directly. The genuine agency arrangements continued, and the evidence did not compel a finding that his later change of role, duties, job title or rate of pay materially changed those arrangements. The Tribunal’s evaluation was open to it. In assessing perversity, the evidence and reasons must be considered as a whole: Fage UK Ltd v Chobani UK Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 5.

1. Employment Appeal Tribunal In [2026] EAT 157 , the appeal against UGL was dismissed. Following the sift, a Rule 3(10) hearing permitted amended grounds to proceed; the appeal against SCCL was dismissed after Mr Nagra no longer challenged the finding that SCCL did not employ him.
2. Employment Tribunal, Birmingham Following a preliminary hearing on 10 and 11 August 2023, the Tribunal dismissed the claims against SCCL and UGL. Its reasons were sent on 30 November 2023. A reconsideration application was refused.