An employment tribunal decision does not set legal precedent that binds the EHRC. It doesn’t even bind future tribunals There is no statutory provision that says the EHRC is bound by such tribunal decisions. Please feel free to quote the specific statute and section you are relying on here. You may be thinking of schedule 2, paragraph 19 of the Equality Act 2006, but that does not do what you think it does. ”19. An inquiry, investigation or assessment may not question (whether expressly or by necessary implication) the findings of a court or tribunal.” just means that an investigation by the EHRC into the circumstances of the Miller case, if there were one, could not question the tribunal findings in THAT case in THAT investigation. It is a bar on reopening those findings inside that process, not a precedent rule and not a duty to apply one case’s conclusions to a different organisation. Even on its own terms, the Miller point is weaker than your post suggests. The protected-belief finding was made by an employment tribunal and later upheld by the Employment Appeal Tribunal as a conclusion the tribunal was entitled to reach on the belief as Miller formulated it. The EAT did not re-decide the belief for itself; it merely found no error in the tribunal’s application of the Grainger criteria to the belief as Miller formulated it. Your statement that “anti-Zionism is now a protected belief” is an overclaim. The EAT decision does bind employment tribunals but only on the point of law it actually decides. It does not bind the EHRC’s general functions, and paragraph 19 still does not carry Miller across to an investigation of the Green Party. So, the Miller case is appellate authority on a point of law for employment tribunals. It is not a general ruling that “anti-Zionism” is protected in every formulation, and Schedule 2 paragraph 19 does not convert it into a constraint on an EHRC investigation of a different organisation.