For guidance on disciplinary procedures or appeal processes, call us on 0330 123 9501 or complete the form below to speak with one of our employment law experts.
Milrine v DHL (2026) highlights the importance of a proper disciplinary appeal process. Employers must ensure clear procedures, written communications, and escalation routes to avoid unfair dismissal claims.
12 March 2026
Case Study
In February 2026, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) considered the case of Milrine v DHL Services Ltd, which illustrates the crucial role of a well-managed appeal process in disciplinary dismissals.
Mr Milrine, an HGV driver, had been absent from work for more than two years due to medical incapacity and was dismissed by DHL. Following the dismissal, he lodged an appeal.
However, the appeal process was poorly managed from the outset. The initially nominated appeal manager declined to hear the appeal, and a replacement manager failed to attend the scheduled hearing. Although the employer asked Mr Milrine and his representative to suggest a new manager and propose dates, this request was never confirmed in writing. Ultimately, no internal appeal hearing took place, leaving Mr Milrine without a formal opportunity to challenge the dismissal.
The key question before the EAT was whether the dismissal could be considered fair despite the employer’s failure to conduct a proper appeal. This case is particularly relevant for SME employers, business owners, and managers handling disciplinary processes internally, as well as for organisations without dedicated HR teams. The case also underscores the guidance in the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures, which highlights that employees should always have the right to appeal disciplinary decisions.
Case Study
The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the dismissal was unfair, emphasizing that the appeal stage is an essential element of any disciplinary process. Even if a dismissal might be substantively justified, a flawed or missing appeal process can render it procedurally unfair.
The tribunal noted several procedural failures in this case. Communications were not confirmed in writing, the employee was left uncertain about the next steps, and the appeal hearing itself did not occur. While the original dismissal may have been reasonable, the defective handling of the appeal had to be taken into account when assessing overall fairness. Additionally, the tribunal clarified that even when procedural flaws do not change the ultimate dismissal outcome, they may still affect the remedy, such as compensation awarded.
Key lessons for employers include ensuring that all disciplinary and dismissal processes have a clearly documented appeal route, confirming in writing who will manage the appeal, and proactively communicating with employees to ensure clarity. Training HR personnel and managers in appeal best practice is also critical. Following a robust appeal process not only reduces the risk of unfair dismissal claims but also demonstrates compliance with legal expectations and best practice guidance.
Employers should also be aware of practical red flags, such as the absence of an escalation point, unclear appeal management, or a lack of written communication. Addressing these issues proactively can significantly mitigate the risk of tribunal claims and associated legal costs.
The Court of Appeal has provided important guidance on the enforceability of training repayment clauses in employment contracts.
Read More
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has clarified when employers may be deemed to have knowledge of an employee's disability.
Read More
Download our probationary period resource pack to help prepare for the Employment Rights Act changes from January 2027.
Read More
An employer's failure to involve an employee in an investigation led to findings of disability discrimination and compensation.
Read More
The EAT highlights the limits of protected conversations and the risks employers face when discussions are handled incorrectly.
Read More
Employer ordered to pay over £264,000 after a reference referring to an ongoing dispute was found to amount to victimisation.
Read More
Download expert guidance on UK trade union reforms and prepare your organisation for Employment Rights Act changes.
Read More
EAT confirms endometriosis can be a disability and examines reasonable adjustments, dismissal risks and performance management issues for employers.
Read More
EAT confirms withdrawing a conditional job offer can breach contract with employers understanding when an offer is binding and notice applies.
Read More
EAT confirms leaving transferred staff on inferior terms can amount to indirect discrimination, even under TUPE.
Read More
EAT confirms dismissal must be based on the employer’s actual reason, not a substitute. Incorrect reasoning can make dismissal unfair.
Read More