The EAT (Lord Fairley) handed down judgment on 4 August 2026 in Fieldfisher LLP v Rustambekov [2026] EAT 99, allowing Fieldfisher’s appeal.
The claimant was a senior associate at Fieldfisher. He was summarily dismissed on the basis that he had misconducted himself by sexually harassing one female colleague (Colleague 1), and by acting inappropriately toward another. Fieldfisher also considered, but did not uphold, a serious allegation of sexual assault made by Colleague 1.
The claimant succeeded on a claim for unfair dismissal in the ET. A major part of the ET’s reasoning was its finding (without having heard from her) that Colleague 1 had deliberately lied about the allegation of sexual assault, and that her lie had a “negative pull” on her evidence in relation to the allegation which Freshfields found proved.
The EAT allowed Fieldfisher’s appeal against that judgment, finding that the ET had substituted its judgment for that of the employer on the credibility of Colleague 1 and on how it should have treated her evidence regarding the proven allegation.
The EAT’s judgment is a helpful reminder of long-established principles. But it is most likely to be useful to practitioners (and employers) considering serious allegations of sexual misconduct in the workplace. It emphasises that decisions as to the credibility of colleagues who make complaints of sexual assault and harassment are for the employer, subject only to reasonableness review by the ET.
The judgment can be read here.
Zac Sammour and Joseph Lavery acted for the successful appellant, Fieldfisher. They were instructed by Lewis Silkin.
