Background
The claimant, Gary Jeffery, succeeded in a claim for unfair dismissal against his former employer, Givaudan UK Ltd. At a subsequent remedy hearing, the Employment Judge (EJ) orally denied his application for reinstatement or re-engagement. Following the hearing, the claimant’s solicitors made a timely written request for the judge’s written reasons for that decision, as permitted under Rule 62 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
After the request for reasons was submitted, the parties reached a settlement of the claimant’s claims through a COT3 agreement brokered by ACAS. As required by the settlement terms, the claimant’s solicitors informed the tribunal that the case had settled and that a further remedy hearing was no longer necessary. However, when they followed up on the request for written reasons, the EJ declined to provide them, stating that the COT3 agreement superseded the request because the proceedings had concluded.
The Court’s Holding
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) allowed the claimant’s appeal, holding that the Employment Judge had made an error of law. The EAT found no provision in the procedural rules that extinguishes a party’s entitlement to written reasons upon a subsequent settlement. Once a valid request for reasons has been made under Rule 62, the tribunal is obligated to provide them.
Her Honour Judge Joffe, presiding, reasoned that the purposes of written reasons extend beyond simply enabling an appeal. They are a crucial component of procedural justice, allowing a party to understand why they have won or lost, which is an interest separate from the financial outcome. The court also determined that the claimant’s notification to the tribunal that a settlement had been reached did not constitute a formal “withdrawal” of the claim under the rules, which might have different procedural consequences. The EAT substituted its own decision, ordering that the written reasons for the re-employment decision be provided to the claimant.
Key Takeaways
- A party’s right to receive written reasons for a tribunal decision, once validly requested, is not automatically cancelled by a subsequent settlement agreement.
- Informing a tribunal that a case has settled is not procedurally equivalent to formally “withdrawing” a claim.
- Written reasons serve a critical function of procedural fairness by ensuring litigants understand the basis for a decision, an interest which survives the settlement of the underlying dispute.
Why It Matters
This judgment clarifies an important procedural point for litigants in UK employment tribunals. It confirms that resolving a case through settlement does not retroactively remove a party’s right to receive a formal explanation for a decision made prior to that settlement. The ruling reinforces the high value the judicial system places on transparency and procedural justice, ensuring that a litigant’s desire for a full understanding of a court’s reasoning is protected, even when the practical dispute between the parties has come to an end.