Piepenbrock v LSE: EAT rules on bankruptcy and standing to pursue employment appeals

The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that a bankrupt claimant's appeal on his discrimination and victimisation complaints remained vested in the Official Receiver after his discharge, while his unfair dismissal appeal stayed his to pursue.

In Piepenbrock v London School of Economics and Political Science [2026] EAT 173, His Honour Judge Auerbach also dismissed a separate appeal against a costs order, finding it academic following the discharge.

Background

Dr Theodore Piepenbrock was dismissed by the LSE in 2014. In 2022 the tribunal dismissed his complaints of unfair dismissal, discrimination arising from disability under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010, and victimisation, and later ordered him to pay the LSE's costs. He appealed both decisions.

In 2024 it emerged that he had been made bankrupt. The appeals were stayed while he sought to persuade the Official Receiver, as trustee, to assign the relevant rights back to him. The bankruptcy was automatically discharged in April 2025, but the Official Receiver refused any assignment, conditional or otherwise.

The costs appeal

Under sections 281(1) and 382 of the Insolvency Act 1986, discharge released Dr Piepenbrock from bankruptcy debts, including contingent liabilities existing when the bankruptcy began. The LSE accepted that it could no longer enforce the costs order against him personally, so the appeal was otiose. In any event, Heath v Tang [1993] 1 WLR 1421 meant he had no standing to challenge a debt provable in the bankruptcy.

Unfair dismissal

Following Grady v HM Prison Service [2003] EWCA Civ 527, an unfair dismissal complaint is personal and does not vest in the trustee. That held even though Dr Piepenbrock sought compensation only, since the analysis in Grady rests on reinstatement and re-engagement being the tribunal's first considerations. He could therefore pursue those grounds of appeal bearing on the unfair dismissal complaint, including procedural grounds to the extent they could affect that outcome.

Hybrid complaints

The Equality Act complaints sought compensation for injury to feelings and pain, suffering and loss of amenity, alongside loss of earnings. Applying Khan v Trident Safeguards Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 624 and Ord v Upton [2000] Ch 352, they were hybrid and vested wholly in the trustee. Mulkerrins v PricewaterhouseCoopers [2003] UKHL 41 did not assist, being confined to its "very unusual" facts.

Dr Piepenbrock argued that future loss of earnings after discharge remained his, relying on a first instance passage cited in Ord and on Insolvency Service technical guidance describing a usual practice of limiting claims for future earnings to three years. The judge rejected this. The trustee in Ord had claimed only pre-discharge losses, and Aldous LJ had stated that a single cause of action including past and future earnings vested in the trustee. The guidance described practice and could not alter the law. It was therefore not possible to park remedy and proceed on liability alone.

A further stay was refused, the claimant having had a reasonable opportunity to seek relief under section 303 of the 1986 Act.

Next steps

Following the majority in Khan, Dr Piepenbrock may apply to amend, irrevocably abandoning any claim for loss of remuneration and confining his remedies to a declaration and compensation for injury to feelings and pain, suffering and loss of amenity. The Official Receiver's involvement would not be needed, as it had no wish to pursue the appeals. He has 14 days to confirm whether he will pursue the unfair dismissal appeal and to apply to amend, failing which those parts may be dismissed.

Paul Michell, instructed by Pinsent Masons LLP, appeared for the LSE. Dr Piepenbrock appeared with a lay representative.