Employment Tribunals to Provide Sufficient Reasons
Tribunals, when giving their decisions, are required to do no more than to make clear their findings of fact and to answer any question of law raised.
Bingham LJ said: ‘It has on a number of occasions been made plain that the decision of an Industrial Tribunal is not required to be an elaborate formalistic product of a refined legal draughtsmanship but it must contain an outline of the story which has given rise to the complaint and a summary of the tribunals basic factual conclusions and a statement of the reasons which led them to reach the conclusion which they do so on those basic facts. The parties are entitled to be told why they have won or lost. There should be a sufficient account of the facts and the reasoning to enable the EAT or on further appeal this court to see whether the question of law arises; and it is highly desirable that the decision of an Industrial Tribunal should give guidance both to employers and trade unions as to practices which should or should not be adopted.’
Sir John Donaldson MR, Bingham, Ralph Gibson LJJ
[1987] EWCA Civ 9, [1987] IRLR 250
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd v Crabtree CA 1974
Donaldson LJ discussed the level of detail to be given by a tribunal when giving its reasons: ‘It is impossible for us to lay down any precise guidelines. The overriding test must always be: is the tribunal providing both parties with the materials . .
Cited – Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians (UCATT) v Brain CA 1981
The Court discussed how to evaluate whether the employers acted reasonably: ‘Whether someone acted reasonably is always a pure question of fact. Where parliament has directed a tribunal to have regard to equity – and that, of course, means common . .
Cited – Martin v MBS Fastenings (Glynwed) Distribution Ltd CA 1983
Sir John Donaldson, MR said: ‘Whatever the respective actions of the employer and employee at the time when the contract of employment is terminated, at the end of the day the question always remains the same, ‘Who really terminated the contract of . .
Cited – Varndell v Kearney and Trecker Marwin Ltd CA 1983
Eveleigh LJ discussed the reasons to be given by a tribunal. After quoting Donaldson LJ, he continued: ‘He is not, as I read that judgment, saying that in every case all these points to which I refer must be adhered to, otherwise there will be an . .
Cited – Martin v Glynwed Distribution Ltd CA 1983
Donaldson LJ said: ‘The duty of an industrial tribunal is to give reasons for its decision. This involves making findings of fact and answering a question or questions of law. So far as the findings of fact are concerned, it is helpful to the . .
Cited by:
Cited – Perth and Kinross Council v Ann Howard EAT 4-Sep-2001
The employee had been permitted to work additional hours for another employer. She continued that work during a period of extended sickness, and was dismissed for misconduct. The tribunal held that the involvement of the auditor both in the . .
Cited – Ashraf v Francis W Birkett and Sons Ltd EAT 20-Jul-2001
The employee had been selected for redundancy. He claimed both race and disability discrimination. He appealed a rejection of race discrimination claim. He said that the Meek case required the decision to deal with any significant of conflict of . .
Applied – Cerinus v Bell College of Technology EAT 28-Sep-2001
The employee appealed against the dismissal of her claim for unfair dismissal. Following a re-organisation, she found that there was less and less work of the sort she was employed to undertake. She requested voluntary redundancy and was refused . .
Cited – Dr Anya v University of Oxford and Another CA 22-Mar-2001
Discrimination – History of interactions relevant
When a tribunal considered whether the motive for an act was discriminatory, it should look not just at the act, but should make allowance for earlier acts which might throw more light on the act in question. The Tribunal should assess the totality . .
Cited – TSB Bank Plc v L M Harris EAT 1-Dec-1999
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reason for Dismissal
The employer appealed a finding against them. An employee, when applying for another job, discovered that the reference given revealed many complaints against her . .
Cited – The Law Society v Kamlesh Bahl EAT 7-Jul-2003
EAT Sex Discrimination – Direct
The complainant had been suspended from her position as Vice President of the Law Society. The Society and its officers appealed findings of sex and race discrimination . .
Cited – Lambe v 186K Ltd CA 29-Jul-2004
The claimant had been dismissed for redundancy, but the company had been found not to have consulted him properly, and he had therefore been unfairly dismissed. The tribunal had then found that even if consulted the result would not have been . .
Cited – Fielden, Graham (Executors of Cunliffe deceased) v Cunliffe CA 6-Dec-2005
The will was executed anticipating the marriage to the respondent, leaving assets on discretionary trusts for the responent and various family members and others. She had come to work for the deceased as his housekeeper, but later they came to . .
Cited – Appiah and Another v Bishop Douglas Roman Catholic High School CA 26-Jan-2007
Black students of African origin, had been excluded from school after an incident. They appealed rejection of their claims for race discrimination and victimisation, saying that they had been at first excluded wrongfully.
Held: ‘Consideration . .
Cited – Atabo v Kings College London and others Newman, Methven, Law CA 19-Apr-2007
The claimant sought leave to appeal dismissal of her claim for discrimination, saying that the EAT had missapplied the test in Madarassy and associated cases on the burden of proof.
Held: ‘the applicant did not make out a prima facie case of . .
Cited – Dignity Funerals Limited v Bruce OHCS 14-Oct-2004
The employee was found to have been unfairly dismissed. The employer appealed the compensatory award which was based on his depressive illness. They said that the illness predated the dismissal.
Held: The EAT’s decision was set aside. In . .
Cited – Burns v Royal Mail Group Plc (No 2) (Formerly Consignia Plc), Humphrey EAT 14-Jan-2004
The hearing was an adjourned second hearing. The appeal on sex discrimination had been dismissed, and the balance of the claim for constructive unfair dismissal was adjourned. At that adjourned hearing the claimant now sought to re-open the claims . .
Cited – W v Leeds City Council and SENDIST CA 29-Jul-2005
The court recognised a distinction between educational and non-educational provision as it affected a statement of special educational needs. Judge LJ: ‘Consistent with the relevant statutory provision, Part 3 of the Statement must make provision . .
Cited – H v East Sussex County Council and Others CA 31-Mar-2009
The claimant had a statement of special educational needs, which she sought to have altered to specify a different school. She appealed from a refusal to amend the statement, saying that the Tribunal had not given sufficient weight to educational . .
Cited – Preston v J Smith and Sons (Clerkenwell) Ltd EAT 23-Jun-1992
. .
Cited – Freeman v Salford Health Authority EAT 28-Jul-1992
. .
Cited – Reid v Durabella Ltd (Fomerly Phoenix Floors Ltd) EAT 17-Nov-1992
. .
Cited – Darr and Another v LRC Products Ltd EAT 16-Dec-1992
. .
Cited – North Yorkshire County Council v Ratcliffe and others EAT 21-Jan-1993
School catering assistants claimed equal pay under the Act. Their work had been valued as equal to that of men, but following a contracting out procedure, they earned less than men.
Held: The Council had failed to show that the difference was . .
Cited – Kaur v Brose Ltd EAT 8-Feb-1993
. .
Cited – Northamptonshire County Council v Dattani EAT 17-Feb-1993
. .
Cited – Katigbak v Exchange International EAT 29-Apr-1993
. .
Cited – London Borough of Ealing v Singh EAT 12-May-1993
. .
Cited – Wardman v Carpenter Farrer Partnership EAT 14-May-1993
Industrial Tribunals to receive European guidance on sexual harassment. . .
Cited – O’Callaghan v Notting Hill Housing Trust EAT 18-May-1993
. .
Cited – Anglo Scottish Petroleum Co Ltd v Hyland EAT 18-Jun-1993
. .
Cited – Green-Wheeler v Onyx (UK) Ltd EAT 6-Jul-1993
. .
Cited – Dairy Crest Ltd (T/A Dairy Products Transport) v Convoy EAT 23-Nov-1993
. .
Cited – Firsteel Ltd v Sherwin and others EAT 13-Dec-1993
. .
Cited – Christie v NEI International Combustion Ltd EAT 27-Jan-1994
. .
Cited – Vibroplant Plc v Johnson EAT 8-Feb-1994
. .
Cited – Al Samarrae v Dan-Air Engineering Ltd EAT 22-Feb-1994
. .
Cited – Highfield Gears Ltd v James EAT 12-May-1994
. .
Cited – Shortall (T/A Auction Centres) v Carey EAT 26-May-1994
. .
Cited – Lombard North Central Plc v Leach and Another EAT 26-Jul-1994
. .
Cited – Lincoln (UK) Ltd v Dennis EAT 13-Sep-1994
. .
Cited – Matveeff v Link Miles Ltd EAT 28-Sep-1994
. .
Cited – Automotive amd Financial Group Ltd v Bark EAT 10-Oct-1994
. .
Cited – Ali and others v Joseph Hoyle and Sons Ltd EAT 14-Oct-1994
. .
Cited – Riley v Meat and Livestock Commission EAT 21-Nov-1994
. .
Cited – Pedder (T/A D R Pedder Vehicle Repair and Tyre Centre v Bird EAT 22-Nov-1994
. .
Cited – Leicester University Students Union v Mahomed EAT 6-Dec-1994
The Union appealed a finding of unfair dismissal and discrimination. It denied that she had sufficient continuous service, saying that the peirod suggested involved working for two employers. It also said that since the objection went as to . .
Cited – Lloyd v IBM (UK) Ltd EAT 3-Feb-1995
. .
Cited – ERG Industrial Corporation Ltd v Knibbs EAT 22-Feb-1995
. .
Cited – John Knight (Animal By-Products) Ltd v Marshall EAT 23-Feb-1995
. .
Cited – Arbon v Welding Alloys Ltd EAT 24-Feb-1995
. .
Cited – Owusu v London Fire and Civil Defence Authority EAT 1-Mar-1995
The employee complained of his employer’s repeated failure to regrade him, and alleged discrimination. The employer said his claim was out of time.
Held: Mummery J made the distinction between single acts of discrimination, and continuing . .
Cited – Davies v Secretary of State for Social Security EAT 5-Apr-1995
. .
Cited – Taylor and 18 Others v BICC Brand Rex Ltd and Another EAT 14-Jun-1995
. .
Cited – Chauhan v Katsouris EAT 15-Nov-1995
. .
Cited – Otto Schiff Housing Association v Kan EAT 22-Nov-1995
. .
Cited – House of Fraser v Quist-Brown EAT 27-Nov-1995
. .
Cited – Cuspo 2000 Ltd v McLachlan EAT 29-Nov-1995
. .
Cited – Taylor v H Backhouse (Baker St) Ltd EAT 29-Nov-1995
. .
Cited – Secretary of State for Employment v McVey EAT 5-Dec-1995
. .
Cited – Britannia Building Society v Griffiths EAT 26-Jan-1996
. .
Cited – Pye and others v British Coal Corporation EAT 19-Feb-1996
. .
Cited – Barker and others v Shahrokni EAT 5-Mar-1996
. .
Cited – Speciality Care Plc v Pachela and Another EAT 8-Mar-1996
. .
Cited – Bennett v Sergio Gambi and others EAT 14-May-1996
Appeal against rejection of sex harassment and discrimination claim. She said that the tribunal had given no clear inication that her allegations were either accepted or rejected.
Held: The decision adequately clarified that the tribunal had . .
Cited – Akinsanya v London Borough of Hackney EAT 20-May-1996
. .
Cited – Scott v W F Refrigeration Ltd EAT 20-May-1996
. .
Cited – Forrester v Inchcape Testing Services (UK) Ltd EAT 21-May-1996
. .
Cited – Stewart v Owner Drivers Radio Taxi Services EAT 14-Jun-1996
. .
Cited – Hellewell v Manchester Metropolitan University EAT 3-Jul-1996
. .
Cited – Oxfordshire County Council v Clarke EAT 10-Sep-1996
. .
Cited – Ravenscourt Laboratories Ltd v Soni EAT 15-Oct-1996
. .
Cited – Cook v British Gas (East Midlands) Ltd EAT 28-Oct-1996
. .
Cited – R T Tanner and Co Ltd v B T Mansfield and others EAT 4-Nov-1996
. .
Cited – Israr v The Blue Cross EAT 12-Nov-1996
. .
Cited – Martin v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry EAT 15-Nov-1996
. .
Cited – Ryalls v Drury and Another EAT 21-Nov-1996
. .
Cited – Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Amess and Another EAT 22-Nov-1996
. .
Cited – Swallow International Hotel Ltd v Elhaouari EAT 27-Nov-1996
. .
Cited – BET Catering Services Ltd v Ball and others EAT 28-Nov-1996
Mrs Ball was an employee of a London Borough whose contract incorporated the NJC conditions. Following her TUPE transfer to BET, a private sector employer, the NJC promulgated terms that included pay increases. The issue was whether BET was obliged . .
Cited – Del Grosso v Tom Cobleigh Plc EAT 17-Dec-1996
. .
Cited – Save and Prosper Group Ltd v Sequeira EAT 13-Jan-1997
. .
Cited – Compair Holman Ltd v Evans EAT 17-Jan-1997
. .
Cited – Graham v Boots the Chemists Ltd EAT 24-Jan-1997
. .
Cited – Witheridge v Sun Alliance and London Insurance Plc EAT 6-Feb-1997
. .
Cited – Taylor Freezer (UK) Plc v Merakli and Another EAT 5-Mar-1997
. .
Cited – Donovan v New Islington and Hackney Housing Association EAT 10-Mar-1997
. .
Cited – Hudson and Needham v Gora EAT 14-Mar-1997
. .
Cited – Speller v Golden Rose Communications Plc EAT 6-May-1997
. .
Cited – D v J Alford Transport Ltd EAT 11-Jun-1997
. .
Cited – High Table Limited v Horst, Jowett and and Burley CA 1-Jul-1997
The place where an employee was employed for the purposes of the employer’s business was to be determined by a consideration of the factual circumstances which obtained until the dismissal. Where an employee had worked in only one location under his . .
Cited – Beckett v Carver and Beckett Ltd and Another EAT 8-Jul-1997
. .
Cited – Martins v Sussex Police EAT 28-Jul-1997
. .
Cited – Joseph and others v Exel Logistics and others EAT 27-Oct-1997
. .
Cited – Dench v Fynn and Partners EAT 30-Oct-1997
. .
Cited – Gledhill v G and J Spencer Plc (T/A Hygiene Specialists) EAT 31-Oct-1997
. .
Cited – Holden v West Berkshire Priority Care Service NHS Trust EAT 24-Nov-1997
. .
Cited – Eley v Huntleigh Diagnostics Ltd EAT 1-Dec-1997
. .
Cited – British Flowplant Group Ltd v Law and others EAT 16-Dec-1997
. .
Cited – Relaxion Group Plc v Bennett EAT 18-Dec-1997
. .
Cited – Leicestershire Mental Health Services NHS Trust v Pereira EAT 1998
. .
Cited – Claremont Garments (Holdings) Plc v Berry EAT 27-Jan-1998
. .
Cited – Lockwood v Permic Ltd (T/A Permic Emergency Lighting) EAT 10-Feb-1998
. .
Cited – Julienne v Post Office and Another EAT 19-Feb-1998
. .
Cited – Hussaney v Chester City FC and Another EAT 23-Mar-1998
. .
Cited – Welsh v Post Office EAT 1-May-1998
. .
Cited – Nwokenagu v Midland Nursing Home and others EAT 1-May-1998
. .
Cited – Network Communications Systems Ltd v Hill EAT 1-May-1998
. .
Cited – Khor v Caerphilly County Council and others EAT 12-May-1998
. .
Cited – Whitley and Another v Thompson EAT 14-May-1998
The claimants appealed against dismissal of their allegations of sexual harassment. The tribunal had found against them on the facts. . .
Cited – Rega v Ridge Crest Cleaning Service EAT 21-May-1998
. .
Cited – Khan v Oxford City Mosque Society EAT 23-Jul-1998
. .
Cited – Butterfield v Rapidmark Ltd (T/A 3 MV) EAT 9-Sep-1998
. .
Cited – Tayler v Pipefix Ltd EAT 14-Oct-1998
. .
Cited – Post Office v Kalam EAT 12-Nov-1998
. .
Cited – Orange Personal Communications Services Ltd v Firth EAT 18-Nov-1998
. .
Cited – Roberts v Warrington Borough Council EAT 1-Dec-1998
. .
Cited – London Borough Camden v Akers EAT 27-Jan-1999
. .
Cited – Ani Aurora Plc (T/A Edgar Allen Engineering Ltd) v Eastell EAT 1-Mar-1999
. .
Cited – Sidhu v Aerospace Composite Technology Ltd EAT 18-Mar-1999
. .
Cited – Hewitt v W E Anfield and Co Ltd EAT 1-Apr-1999
. .
Cited – Collins v John Ansell and Partners Ltd EAT 14-Apr-1999
. .
Cited – X v Y and Another EAT 15-Apr-1999
. .
Cited – D J Collins v John Ansell and Partners Ltd EAT 12-Jan-2000
EAT Transfer of Undertakings – Economic technical or organisational reason. . .
Cited – Superdrug Stores Plc v Fannon EAT 27-Jan-1997
. .
Cited – Thames Valley Police v Kellaway EAT 14-Jan-1998
. .
Cited – Dass v Tower Hamlets College EAT 13-May-1998
. .
Cited – Dass v Tower Hamlets College EAT 22-Jan-1999
. .
Cited – City and Hackney Community Services NHS Trust v Nwosu EAT 20-May-1999
. .
Cited – Smith (T/A Wimbourne Pet Centre) v Tyler EAT 1-Jun-1999
. .
Cited – Tabani v United Bank Ltd EAT 21-Jun-1999
. .
Cited – London Underground Ltd v Bragg EAT 23-Jun-1999
EAT Disability Discrimination – Disability. . .
Cited – Moore v Travelsphere Ltd and others EAT 23-Jun-1999
. .
Cited – Healy and others v Corporation of London EAT 24-Jun-1999
. .
Cited – British Telecommunications Plc v Wilding EAT 30-Jun-1999
. .
Cited – Dass v Tower Hamlets College EAT 19-Jul-1999
. .
Cited – B G Lardier v British Gas Research and Technology Plc EAT 11-Oct-1999
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Procedural Fairness
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Procedural fairness/automatically unfair dismissal. . .
Cited – K E Taylor v Commissioners of Inland Revenue EAT 27-Sep-1999
EAT Sex Discrimination – Indirect . .
Cited – Mars UK Ltd T/A Masterfoods v K Parker EAT 24-Oct-2005
EAT Whether an Employment Tribunal took a permissible approach to determining that a dismissal was unfair, in circumstances in which it did not clearly set out the terms of section 98 of the Employment Rights Act . .
Cited – Armstrong and others v Newcastle Upon Tyne NHS Hospital Trust CA 21-Dec-2005
The claimants claimed equal pay, asserting use of particular comparators. The Trust said that there was a genuine material factor justifying the difference in pay.
Held: To constitute a single source for the purpose of article 141, it is not . .
Cited – Arhin v Enfield Primary Care Trust CA 20-Dec-2010
The claimant doctor appealed against the refusal of compensatory damages awarded on a finding that she had been unfairly selected for redundancy. . .
Cited – Foster v Bon Groundwork Ltd EAT 17-Mar-2011
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Striking-out/dismissal
In April 2009, the Claimant, who was then 77 years of age, was employed by the Respondent, when he was laid off without pay. While still being employed by . .
Cited – Cumbria Probation Board v Collingwood EAT 28-May-2008
EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
Disability / Disability related discrimination / Reasonable adjustments
JURISDICTIONAL POINTS
>2002 Act and pre-action requirements
The date of disability is . .
Cited – Grant v HM Land Registry CA 1-Jul-2011
The appellant had succeeded in his claim for sex discrimination arising from his orientation, but the EAT had reversed the decision. He now appealed against the EAT decision. Although he had revealed his sexuality in one post, he had chosen to delay . .
Cited – Nambalat v Taher and Another EAT 8-Dec-2011
nambalatEAT2011
EAT National Minimum Wage Act 1998
National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999, Reg. 2(2)
Unauthorised deductions from wages
All three Claimants were foreign domestic workers employed in the . .
Cited – East Sussex County Council v Hancock EAT 5-Nov-2003
EAT The Council appealed against a finding that the respondent, their employee, was disabled under the 1995 Act. He suffered from a long term mixed anxiety and depression disorder, but the Council disputed that . .
Cited – Eildon Ltd v Sharkey EAT 28-Jul-2004
EAT Practice and Procedure – Employment Tribunal made adverse findings against Respondent when the point had not been put to its 3 witnesses in XX. Remit to new Employment Tribunal. . .
Cited – Meikle v Nottingham City Council EAT 14-Apr-1994
The appellant challenged dismissal of her claim for indirect racial discrimination based on two grounds. First, that the Tribunal’s decision was perverse; in other words that it was a decision which, on the evidence before it, no reasonable tribunal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Leading Case
Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.180513