HR teams are well used to managing long‑term sickness absence and difficult capability dismissals. For anyone involved in dismissal processes, the recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) case of Milrine v DHL Services Ltd [2026] EAT 31 is a timely reminder that even where a dismissal looks justified, getting the appeal wrong can undo it all.
What happened in Milrine v DHL Services Ltd?
Mr Milrine was a long‑serving HGV driver for DHL. He had been off work for over two years due to serious health conditions, including vertigo and vestibular migraines. Following medical evidence and review, DHL dismissed him on grounds of capability.
Mr Milrine appealed against his dismissal. The appeal was intended to be a full re‑hearing, but it never actually took place. The nominated appeal manager refused to hear it, a replacement manager failed to attend the rescheduled hearing, following which there was poor communication concerning a further rescheduling of the hearing, and responsibility was effectively pushed back onto Mr Milrine to reorganise. DHL did not clearly confirm arrangements in writing, and the appeal process drifted until it stalled entirely.
The Employment Tribunal found that DHL had not handled the appeal according to best practice, Mr Milrine had been offered an opportunity to appeal, which he ultimately elected not to pursue due to commencing ACAS Early Conciliation.
The Employment Tribunal dismissed Mr Milrine’s claim having found the decision to dismiss to be within the range of reasonable responses and therefore fair, but criticised DHL’s internal appeal stage as falling short of good industrial relations practice.
Mr Milrine appealed to the EAT submitting that the Employment Tribunal had erred in failing to apply the principle that procedural unfairness at the appeal stage might render a dismissal unfair overall, and had reached a decision not reasonably open to it.
What did the EAT say?
The EAT overturned the Employment Tribunal’s decision and substituted a finding of unfair dismissal. It reiterated the well-established principle that an appeal is part of the dismissal process, not an optional add-on.
The EAT said that the more serious the flaws in the appeal process, the harder it is to argue that the dismissal was fair overall. On the facts of this case, the defects were described as “striking”. There was no proper appeal hearing, no clear management of the process, and no finding that an appeal would have been pointless anyway.
As a result, even though the original capability decision might otherwise have been reasonable, the defects at appeal stage were so severe that the only outcome properly open to an Employment Tribunal, was to find the dismissal unfair.
Implications of the ruling
This case is a strong reminder of a few key points:
Appeals matter – They are not a formality or a “second bite” that can be deprioritised.
Ownership is crucial – HR should proactively manage appeal logistics rather than leaving it to employees to chase or reorganise.
Clear communication counts – Dates, decision‑makers and next steps should be confirmed in writing.
Process can outweigh outcome – Even where dismissal is inevitable, procedural missteps can still lead to liability.
Practical takeaways for employers
Employers should build time and resource into appeal stages and treat the appeal as a genuine safeguard, not a box-ticking exercise. Handled properly, an appeal can confirm that a dismissal decision was the right one. Handled badly, it can unravel it entirely and be costly.
If you are reviewing your dismissal or appeal processes, this decision is a good prompt to check whether they are working effectively in practice and make any necessary changes to policy/procedures and ensure they are implemented.
The full judgment can be read here:
https://www.gov.uk/employment-appeal-tribunal-decisions/milrine-v-dhl-services-ltd-2026-eat-31