Robinson v Harris & Others – Not every workplace disagreement amounts to discrimination.

“Just because someone alleges discrimination doesn’t mean every workplace disagreement becomes unlawful treatment.”

 

That was the key message from the Employment Appeal Tribunal in Robinson v Harris & Others [2026] EAT 71.

 

The case looked at an important point in discrimination law: how Equality Act protections apply to self-employed barristers, and whether the Tribunal had applied the wrong legal test.

   

What Happened?

   

Ms Robinson was a self-employed barrister and tenant at 10 King’s Bench Walk Chambers.

   

She raised concerns about:

• The handling of direct access instructions,
• Requests for repayment of a £360 brief fee for work she had declined,
• The conduct of clerks and members of chambers management.

   

She later brought claims of:

 

against chambers, two clerks and members of the management committee.

Her complaints included allegations that:

• She had been ‘badgered’ into accepting instructions,
• Clerks had acted aggressively when requesting repayment of fees,
• Her complaints were not taken seriously,
• Work was withheld after she raised concerns.

Why the Tribunal rejected the claims:

The Tribunal found no unlawful discrimination, harassment or victimisation. 

They concluded:

• The communications from chambers were professional and administrative in nature,
• Requests to return the £360 fee were standard practice,
• Other barristers would have been treated in the same way,
• There was no evidence that race played any part in the treatment complained of,
• There was no evidence work had been withheld because she had brought complaints.

The claims failed on the facts.

What Happened on Appeal?

Ms Robinson argued that:

• The Tribunal failed to properly apply section 47 Equality Act 2010, which protects self-employed barristers, and
• The Tribunal wrongly referred to section 39 EqA, which applies to employees.

The EAT rejected both arguments.

The Appeal Tribunal confirmed:

• Section 47 is simply the gateway giving self-employed barristers access to Equality Act protections,
• The Tribunal had fully understood her self-employed status,
• The case was decided by applying the correct legal tests for discrimination, harassment and victimisation.

The reference to section 39 was described as unnecessary, but not an error affecting the outcome.

The Takeaway

Simply being self-employed does not change the legal test for discrimination or harassment claims.

Tribunals will focus on:

• The actual evidence,
• Whether unlawful conduct occurred, and
• Whether there is a factual link to the protected characteristic.

Minor drafting errors in a judgment will not overturn a decision if the Tribunal’s reasoning, read as a whole, is sound.

Ask yourself:

If a discrimination complaint was made in your organisation today, could you clearly evidence that decisions and communications were consistent, professional, and unrelated to any protected characteristic?