Settlement Did Not Terminate Entitlement to Written Reasons

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled that a settlement of an Employment Tribunal (ET) claim by way of a COT3 agreement did not extinguish the claimant's right to be provided with written reasons for the ET's decision (Jeffery v Givaudan UK Ltd).

The ET had found that the claimant had been unfairly and wrongfully dismissed. At a later remedy hearing, the ET had refused his application for reinstatement or re-engagement, giving oral reasons. The claimant asked for written reasons for that decision, in accordance with Rule 62 of the 2013 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure.

The parties subsequently agreed a COT3 settlement. The ET was notified that the claim had been settled and informed the parties that the settlement superseded the claimant's request for written reasons, which would therefore not be provided. The claimant made a request for the ET to reconsider or vary its decision not to provide reasons, which was declined.

The claimant appealed to the EAT, arguing that it was an error of law for the ET to refuse to provide written reasons on the basis that reaching a COT3 settlement extinguished his entitlement to the reasons he had requested.

The EAT observed that written reasons must be taken to further the same purpose as reasons generally. They provide parties with an understanding of why they have won or lost. The claim having been settled, the claimant had abandoned his right to challenge the ET's judgment: he wanted the written reasons so that he could understand the reasons for the decision more fully, in his own way and in his own time. In the EAT's view, it would be wrong to underestimate the importance of procedural justice to litigants.

The EAT noted that there was no discretion in Rule 62, or elsewhere in the Rules, for written reasons not to be provided, and there was no provision that a settlement itself brings a claim to an end. While it could be argued that the effect of Rule 51 of the Rules was that withdrawal of a claim brought it to an end for the purpose of a request for written reasons, the ET's decision could not be interpreted as having been made on the basis that there had been a withdrawal. There was simply no provision in the Rules to the effect that settlement, whether by way of a COT3 agreement or otherwise, of itself terminated a claimant's entitlement to written reasons. It followed that the ET had erred in law. The EAT allowed the appeal and substituted a decision that the claimant should be provided with the reasons he had requested.