Sarah Ash
Group Partner*
Guernsey
Last year, 64 decisions were published in Jersey and 8 in Guernsey, offering valuable insights for employers and HR professionals. Several trends have emerged that merit attention.
Consistency across the islands
Both jurisdictions have shown a clear commitment to procedural rigour and evidential clarity. Three areas of alignment stand out.
Strict approach to time limits
Guernsey’s decisions in Dodd and Gibson confirm that the Tribunal will rarely extend time limits, even though Guernsey legislation now provides the Tribunal with a broad discretion to extend time limits. The approach in Guernsey contrasts sharply with the more flexible approach often taken by the UK Tribunals, who have proven much more willing to extend time based on the same legislative test.
The Jersey Employment Tribunal also continues to take a restrictive stance to extending time limits consistent with there being no general discretion for the Tribunal to extend time limits in Jersey.
The result is that in both Guernsey and Jersey employees and employers are expected to act promptly and make reasonable enquiries as to their legal rights and applicable time limits, even when suffering from ill-health.
Strike-outs for weak or legally defective claims
Both Tribunals struck out claims last year, often on jurisdictional grounds such as time limits, employment status or length of service. In Guernsey, over two thirds of the reported claims were either struck out or dismissed before a final hearing.
What stands out is that the Guernsey Tribunal was also willing to strike out a discrimination claim (Simau) because it considered the claim had no reasonable prospect of success based on the evidence likely to be available. This is unusual compared to UK practice, where discrimination claims are rarely struck out except in the clearest cases.
By contrast, strike-outs in Jersey last year (e.g. A v B) tended to be driven by statutory limits – for example, where the alleged act was not ‘in the course of employment’, meaning the Tribunal had no jurisdiction.
Emphasis on process
Whether in Jersey (Dinah Dias) or Guernsey (Butcher), failure to follow a fair process remains a key risk for employers. Even where substantive grounds for dismissal exist, procedural lapses can lead to liability. The Jersey decision in Tracey Vincent illustrates that where some process has been followed, the Tribunal will take account of employer size when determining if the process was reasonable. The Guernsey Tribunal will usually take the same approach.
Where the islands diverge
Despite these similarities, a notable difference arose in decisions relating to employment status:
Guernsey’s decision in De Sousa confirms that if a bank worker isn’t legally obliged to accept any work that is offered, there will be no ‘mutuality of obligation’ and the worker is unlikely to benefit from employment law protections. Differences in Jersey legislation mean that the Jersey Tribunal, by contrast, has held that bank workers may still qualify as employees even where there is no mutuality of obligation (Grzegorz Kaminski).
Other takeaways
Resignation is risky
Jersey decisions show that the bar for succeeding in a constructive unfair dismissal claim remains high. The following were found not to breach the implied duty of trust and confidence:
- Setting of targets through performance management and proportionate handling of grievances (Gerald Williams)
- Insensitive questioning of health matters (Marta Kolut)
- Offering an employee the option to resign to avoid a disciplinary process, where the employee had a genuine choice (David Foley)
- Sub-optimal HR handling of concerns raised by the Claimant (James Kelly)
There were no decisions on constructive unfair dismissal in Guernsey last year, but earlier cases show that the bar for succeeding in constructive dismissal claims in Guernsey is also high.
Disability discrimination
Jersey’s Dinah Dias case underscores the duty to make enquiries and consider adjustments where disability is known or ought to be known.
While no disability discrimination claims have yet been heard by the Guernsey Tribunal, employers should assume similar principles apply.
Practical lessons for employers
- Time limits matter: Do not assume Tribunal discretion will save a late claim or response. Both islands expect parties to act promptly and within statutory time limits save for in very exceptional circumstances.
- Strike-out risk for weak claims: Tribunals may be prepared to strike out complaints – even discrimination complaints - at an early stage in proceedings where evidence is lacking. Employers should maintain contemporaneous records to support decisions and consider making an application for strike out in appropriate cases.
- Process is key: Even small employers should follow their own policies and applicable codes of practice. Document investigations, disciplinary steps and adjustments considered for health-related issues.
- Clarity in contracts: The Jersey Tribunal’s decision not to enforce an unwritten commission arrangement due to lack of certainty (Lee Le Clercq) highlights the importance for both parties of putting financial terms in writing.
Looking ahead to 2026
In Jersey, recent decisions point to a continued emphasis on procedural fairness, clarity in contractual terms and strict adherence to statutory frameworks. Employers should expect the Tribunal to maintain its cautious approach to extending time limits and wait to see how the increased compensatory limits for discrimination claims and the new costs regime implemented in the summer of 2025 impacts the number of claims being brought and fought to final hearing. See our other article for a review of the first cases on the new costs regime.
In Guernsey, we are still awaiting the first full hearing of a claim under the Prevention of Discrimination (Guernsey) Ordinance 2022. It will be interesting to see the approach that the Tribunal takes to such claims, and whether we will see further areas of divergence from established UK law principles. Across both islands, the safest course for employers is to focus on fundamentals: follow fair process, document decisions and ensure contractual clarity. These steps will remain critical in mitigating risk in 2026
