Employment

Holmes v Qinetiq Ltd (Age Discrimination)

[2016] UKEAT 0206_15_2604Employment Appeal Tribunal2016

Cite this case in OSCOLA →All Employment cases →

“1. The Employment Tribunal was correct to refuse to award any uplift in compensation pursuant to section 207A(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (as amended).”

Read the full brief — free

You're reading the free summary of Holmes v Qinetiq Ltd (Age Discrimination). Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.

Create free account Already have one? Sign in

No card required. Free forever.

Read the full judgment elsewhere

Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.

More Employment cases

Pepkolaj v Barrett Steel Ltd (Practice and Procedure)

[2026] UKEAT 14

Lamb v Teva UK Ltd (Unfair Dismissal)

[2026] UKEAT 8

J Mayanja v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council

[2026] EAT 7

Anea v OCS UK & I Ltd & Ors (Practice and Procedure)

[2026] UKEAT 21

MacAusland Design Limited v A Portosi

[2026] EAT 51

Chand v EE Ltd (Unfair dismissal; reason for dismissal; composite reason; fairness)

[2026] UKEAT 17

This case is reproduced verbatim from the public judgment published by The National Archives under the UK Government's Open Government Licence v3.0. If you appear in this case and believe it should not be published — for example because your conviction was quashed on appeal, you have statutory anonymity, or for other privacy reasons — request removal here.