The Employment Appeal Tribunal’s (EAT) decision in Shing v University of the Arts London [2026] provides useful clarification on a difficult question for employers: how far can HR become involved in a disciplinary decision without compromising the fairness of the process?
The EAT revisited Ramphal v Department for Transport, the well-known authority from 2015 concerning HR involvement in disciplinary decision making.
In Shing, the EAT has made it clear that Ramphal is not authority for the proposition that any intervention in a decision to dismiss renders the dismissal unfair. Indeed, the EAT recognised that HR has an important role in helping to maintain consistency between decisions in different parts of an organisation.
That clarification will be particularly helpful for larger employers, including universities, where HR teams routinely advise managers dealing with complex disciplinary cases and may have greater visibility of how similar cases have been handled elsewhere in the organisation.
What was the claim about?
The claimant, a senior lecturer at the University, was summarily dismissed following a relationship with a mature student which the University considered inappropriate. He brought claims including unfair dismissal and direct race discrimination.
Relying on Ramphal, he argued that HR had improperly influenced the decision to dismiss.
A HR adviser attended the disciplinary hearing and afterwards asked the dismissing manager whether he had reached a decision. The adviser provided template letters covering both a warning and dismissal, and later recorded his understanding that the manager was likely to dismiss the claimant. Once that decision had been made, the adviser drafted the memorandum recommending dismissal to the vice-chancellor, whose endorsement was required under the University’s procedure.
The claimant argued that this demonstrated improper HR influence.
What did the Tribunal decide?
The Tribunal disagreed. The contemporaneous correspondence showed that the dismissing manager remained the decision maker. The HR adviser left the hearing without knowing the outcome and the manager continued to deliberate afterwards. Providing alternative template letters did not show that HR had predetermined or directed the decision.
Nor did drafting the subsequent memorandum establish improper influence. The manager had already decided to dismiss and the memorandum reflected his decision.
The Tribunal went further in its discussion of Ramphal. Although it accepted that it was bound by the decision, it questioned whether HR’s role could invariably be limited to matters of law and procedure, observing that HR is also part of “the employer” for unfair dismissal purposes. It considered that HR involvement might create unfairness in some circumstances, but rejected the proposition that this would necessarily be the case.
Why did the EAT agree?
On appeal, the EAT upheld the Tribunal’s approach.
It confirmed that Ramphal was “not authority that any intervention by HR in advising on a decision to dismiss rendered a dismissal unfair”. The concern in Ramphal was that the integrity of the decision had been affected by outside influence. In Shing, HR's involvement was described as "minimal", and there was no evidence of improper pressure.
Importantly, the EAT also recognised that “HR can legitimately support decision-makers and help maintain consistency across an organisation, provided the appointed decision maker reaches their own conclusions.”
Why does this matter for employers?
The key distinction is between supporting a decision and making it. HR can advise and assist with consistency without necessarily compromising the fairness of the process. What matters is that the appointed decision maker genuinely considers the evidence and reaches their own conclusion.
That is particularly important in larger organisations, where individual managers may have limited disciplinary experience, but HR may know how comparable cases have been handled elsewhere.
Practical lessons:
• HR and managers should keep a clear contemporaneous record showing who made the decision.
• HR can provide alternative outcome letters and draft documents implementing a decision already reached.
• HR can advise on consistency, but should avoid directing the decision maker towards a particular outcome.
• Take care with internal correspondence. Asking whether a manager has reached a decision is materially different from telling them what that decision should be.
The central lesson is not that HR must step back from difficult disciplinary cases. It is that HR can support and advise, but the appointed decision maker must remain responsible for the outcome.
Our content explained
Every piece of content we create is correct on the date it’s published but please don’t rely on it as legal advice. If you’d like to speak to us about your own legal requirements, please contact one of our expert lawyers.