EAT CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT – Whether established
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Reasons
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Bias
Claimant offered job in telephone conversation at a salary of pounds 22,427 – Subsequent confirmatory exchange of letters mistakenly identifies salary as pounds 30,762 – Claimant found by Tribunal honestly not to have appreciated that the higher figure was a mistake – Claim depends on whether binding contract made to employ Claimant at pounds 30,762.
Tribunal finds for Claimant but gives different reasons for its decision in its oral and its written Reasons – Judge’s conduct during the hearing perceived by employers as unfair.
HELD, dismissing appeal:
(1) Although the details of the Tribunal’s reasoning (in both the oral and the written Reasons) could be criticised, its substantive decision was unarguably right because (a) on its findings the parties had agreed that they would not be bound until there had been a written offer and acceptance and/or (b), even if a binding agreement had been made in the telephone conversation, it had been superseded by the exchange of letters. The position would have been different if the Claimant had accepted the written offer knowing or believing it to have been made in error, but the Tribunal had found that that was not the case.
(2) The divergence between the reasoning in the oral and written Reason did not constitute an error of law – Observations on the status of oral reasons in cases where written Reasons have been supplied.
(3) The conduct of the Judge was not such as to vitiate the fairness of the proceedings.
Underhill J
[2012] UKEAT 0120 – 12 – 2911
Bailii
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.466569