David Miller’s employment tribunal win challenged
Bristol University appeals against last year's victory for the anti-Zionist academic
The latest round in Professor David Miller’s fight with Bristol University began at the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in central London on Wednesday.
A three-person panel, presided over by Lord Fairley, KC, the EAT president since February 2025, was holding a three-day appeal by the university against the political sociology professor’s victory in 2024. In February last year Miller took the university to an employment tribunal, claiming he had been discriminated against and unfairly dismissed by Bristol in 2021 because of his anti-Zionist beliefs. This followed a long-running battle with Jewish students at Bristol, and Miller’s repeated attacks on Israel and Zionism.
The Employment Tribunal last year ruled in Miller’s favour and said for the first time that anti-Zionism was a “protected” belief under the 2010 Equality Act. The tribunal determined that while some of his comments were “ill-judged,” they did not constitute unlawful speech, were not antisemitic, and did not incite violence. In addition, the tribunal found Bristol’s decision to dismiss him was “disproportionate”, it reduced his potential compensation by 50 per cent due to his own “culpable and blameworthy” conduct in singling out students for criticism.
Now, both the university and Miller himself have appealed against the Employment Tribunal’s decision — Bristol against the ruling that he was discriminated against and unfairly dismissed, and Miller challenging the rulings on “contributory fault” which reduced his compensation.
On Wednesday morning, the EAT panel heard a claim that there were “almost 40 errors of law” in the 2024 Employment Tribunal decision, which runs to more than 100 pages. Chris Milsom, appearing for Bristol University, gave the panellists indicators of some of the problems in last year’s ruling. Many of the issues relate to how a protected belief is “manifested” — in other words, though a belief itself may be legal, it is the way it is expressed which can cause a problem. Lord Fairley repeatedly asked: “Where does one draw the line?”
He asked Mr Milsom if he was suggesting that the question marks were not over the evidence which was heard by the Employment Tribunal, but rather over “evidence which the university says ought to have been considered.”
The Employment Appeal Tribunal is the second stage in a potential four-tier process. Miller could go to the Court of Appeal and then on to the Supreme Court.
The EAT panel was due to sit for three days, with Zac Sammour appearing for Miller. Judgment is not expected until early next year.
Meanwhile, in December, Miller is appearing as the defendant in a private prosecution brought against him by the Campaign Against Antisemitism, over a series of social media posts which he allegedly wrote.
Keep community journalism free.
Jewish News is free for everyone. No paywall. No barriers. Just trusted journalism for anyone who wants to stay connected to Jewish life in Britain.
If you value that, please support us.
From as little as £5 a month, you can help keep our journalism free and accessible to all.
Every day, we report on the issues that matter to our community. We celebrate achievements, support charities, challenge antisemitism and ensure Jewish voices are heard more widely.
From as little as £5 a month, you can help us continue to:
- Report on the stories shaping Jewish life in the UK and beyond
- Bring our community together through shared stories, events and campaigns
- Celebrate the people, culture and moments that define our community
- Support organisations doing vital work across Jewish Britain
You can make a one-off donation or become a regular supporter. Every contribution helps keep our journalism free, independent and accessible to all.
If everyone who values Jewish News gave a small amount, it would make a real difference to our future.
