And speaking of the fairer weather months brings me to an intense discussion on fairness in the shape of Milrine v DHL Services Limited (2026).

Mr Milrine was employed by DHL Services Limited, a logistics and transportation company, as a heavy goods vehicle driver from 14 October 2013 until 3 June 2022, when he was dismissed with notice for medical incapacity.

This followed more than two years’ absence due to conditions including vertigo and vestibular migraines. The internal appeal process was seriously flawed. The initially nominated appeal manager refused to hear the case, and the replacement failed to attend the rescheduled hearing, leaving Mr Milrine waiting with his union representative.

HR then asked him to select an appeal manager and propose dates, without confirming this in writing. When Mr Milrine commenced ACAS early conciliation, believing it would prevent continuation of his internal appeal the employer did not clarify matters or confirm Mr Milrine’s intentions, which ultimately led to the appeal never taking place.

Mr Milrine then filed a claim for unfair dismissal to the Employment Tribunal. The ET dismissed the unfair dismissal claim, criticising the appeal process but holding the dismissal fair on the basis that Mr Milrine had been offered an appeal but did not pursue it.

Mr Milrine then appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, arguing that the ET had erred in treating its procedural criticisms as minor remarks while upholding the fairness of the dismissal.

The EAT overturned the decision and held that the dismissal was unfair.

It noted in its conclusion that the statutory test for determining whether a dismissal is fair requires consideration of the dismissal process as a whole, including the internal appeal stage as it is “an important and normal component of fairness”. The EAT further emphasised that a failure by an employer to offer an appeal, or an appeal that is procedurally defective, may render a dismissal unfair even if, by reference solely to the initial decision to dismiss, it would otherwise have been fair.

However, such a failure does not “automatically or inevitably” lead to a finding of unfair dismissal; if it can be properly concluded that an appeal would have been futile, a failure to offer one may not render the dismissal unfair.

Furthermore, the EAT highlighted that in this case the ET identified significant procedural defects in the internal appeal and rightly criticised them as falling short of good industrial relations practice.

The EAT also noted that this case is highly unusual as “the lay members in particular, with many decades of combined experience of employment relations, were of the view that they had never seen an appeal quite like it”. As it involved many striking features such as leaving Mr Milrine confused and effectively permitting one of its managers to refuse to hear his appeal. The EAT said that due to these defects the ET was required to clearly set out why it did not render the dismissal unfair and hadn’t sufficiently done so.

Overall, the EAT overturned the decision, finding the dismissal to be unfair.

This case is significant as it underscores that the fairness of a dismissal is assessed not only by the initial decision to dismiss but also by the integrity of the entire dismissal process, including the internal appeal. The case demonstrates that procedural defects in an appeal, even where an appeal is offered, can render a dismissal unfair. It also serves as a reminder to employers that internal appeals are a critical component of procedural fairness and that failures at this stage can have significant legal consequences.