EAT Clarifies Limits of Third Party Liability in Claims under the Equality Act 2010

Truman v SPL Powerlines UK Ltd & Ors [2026] EAT 54 [2024 000852 FH MC NK | PDF]

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has provided important guidance on the scope of third‑party liability under sections 111–112 Equality Act 2010, in a case concerning drug testing in a safety‑critical industry.

In this case, together with Patrick Tomison, Counsel of Outer Temple Chambers, we acted for the Third Respondent, an occupational health provider, in successfully resisting claims of disability discrimination and later that it had caused or contributed to alleged disability discrimination. The matter reached the EAT following an appeal by the Claimant and cross-appeals by the Second Respondent and Third Respondent.

Background

The Claimant, who suffers from genetic haemochromatosis, a recognised disability whose primary symptom is chronic pain, was prescribed medical cannabis for chronic pain. He applied for a safety‑critical role with SPL Powerlines (First Respondent), subject to passing a drug and alcohol test.

Following a positive test result that was undertaken by our client, the Claimant was recorded as having failed the drug test. This was uploaded to Sentinel and he was consequently barred from safety‑critical rail work for five years.

The Claimant brought claims against multiple parties, including our client, alleging disability discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments. The Employment Tribunal in the first decision dismissed all of the Claimant’s claims.

The EAT’s Decision

The EAT allowed the Third Respondent’s cross‑appeal and rejected the basis for liability under sections 111–112 of the Equality Act 2010.

1. A strict statutory test applies under s.111

The ET had concluded that liability could arise where a party was “in a position” to help another discriminate. The EAT rejected this broad approach.

It held that section 111 requires:

• a qualifying legal relationship between the parties; and
• that the alleged wrongdoer is in a position to commit a contravention “against” the other party.

2. No relevant relationship in this case

The EAT found that there was no relationship of the required type between Express Medicals and Network Rail (Second Respondent). As a result, the gateway for liability under section 111 was not satisfied.

3. Section 112 cannot expand liability

The Claimant also relied on “knowing assistance” under section 112. The EAT confirmed that section 112 cannot be used to bypass the relationship requirement in section 111.

Practical Implications

This decision is important to determine the risk levels of liability that may have otherwise faced medical providers undertaking similar medical and / or drug and alcohol test of potential employees.

Conclusion

The judgment provides a clear and practical statement of the limits of liability under sections 111–112.

Importantly for our client, it absolves them of liability in this case and any potential floodgate cases that may follow as they acted in accordance with existing frameworks and policies and therefore should not have been and indeed were not found liable.