RESEARCH / VERSION 1.1 / 16 OCTOBER 2026
Alcohol testing, fair procedure and compensation
A coach driver was dismissed after failing an alcohol test. The Employment Tribunal found dismissal unfair only because the internal appeal was unfair, rejected wrongful dismissal and reduced compensation. The EAT rejected challenges to the tribunal’s reasoning on those matters but identified an error in its calculation of future loss.
| Field | Evidence |
|---|---|
| Reference period | 2025-10-21 |
| Coverage | England and Wales |
| Status | Appeal; remedy remittal |
| Source-check date | 2026-10-14 |
| Case reference | Davidson v National Express Ltd [2025] EAT 151; EA-2024-000081-OO |
| Court / tribunal | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
| Issue | Alcohol-related misconduct; unfair dismissal; remedy |
| Actual disposition | Calculation of the underlying compensatory loss remitted for fresh consideration. Challenges concerning the tribunal’s reasoning on Polkey, contributory conduct and wrongful dismissal failed. |
| Appeal / later history checked | This is an appeal judgment. Remittal on compensation verified; subsequent remedy determination and further appeal not verified. |
| Authority level | Employment Appeal Tribunal — appellate |
| Addiction / medication scope | Alcohol-testing misconduct; no addiction or disability-discrimination finding. |
| Targeted history check | Targeted GOV.UK web search did not verify a later remedy judgment or further appeal. No inference of absence. |
| Appellate reasoning | Compensatory loss required a reasoned assessment of the evidence, rather than an unsupported age-65 cut-off. [Source: Paragraphs 53–65] |
| Operative disposition | Past and future loss were remitted. The existing percentage adjustments, basic award and rejection of wrongful dismissal remained undisturbed. [Source: Paragraphs 66–68] |
Paragraph-backed propositions
- Compensatory loss required a reasoned assessment of the evidence, rather than an unsupported age-65 cut-off. Paragraphs 53–65 (Appellate reasoning)
- Past and future loss were remitted. The existing percentage adjustments, basic award and rejection of wrongful dismissal remained undisturbed. Paragraphs 66–68 (Operative disposition)
Interpretation limits
An alcohol-testing misconduct case, not a finding of addiction or a disability-discrimination ruling. A finding of procedural unfairness does not mean that the underlying conduct was acceptable.
Sources
- HMCTS: Davidson v National Express Ltd [2025] EAT 151 — Summary (PDF p. 2); paragraphs 1–4 and final conclusion.
- Appellate reasoning — Paragraphs 53–65
- Operative disposition — Paragraphs 66–68
Cite this record
Civil Liberties Action (2026). Addiction and employment law: Alcohol testing, fair procedure and compensation. Record case-davidson-2025-eat151, version 1.1, 2026-10-16. https://cla-political-finance.copperchime4.chatgpt.site/databases/releases/2026-10-16-v1.1/records/cases/case-davidson-2025-eat151.html
Open the current interactive record · Dataset findings and methods