Read Vale Manufacturing Company Limited v McCormack & Anor

An appeal from an Employment Tribunal is confined to questions of law and must not become a retrial or rehearing of factual issues. Employment Tribunals are the primary fact-finding bodies, so their factual conclusions are ordinarily final, subject to rare exceptions. A tribunal’s control of cross-examination and evidence is generally a procedural ruling linked to the issues for trial. The Court of Appeal will intervene only in a very strong case showing legal error. Dissatisfaction with restrictions on questioning, or with a finding such as absence of resignation, does not itself create an arguable point of law.

Read Vale Manufacturing Company Limited sought permission to appeal from an order of the Employment Appeal Tribunal made at a preliminary hearing on 19 March 2001. The EAT had dismissed the company’s appeal from a decision of the Manchester Employment Tribunal in favour of Mr McCormack, including a finding that he had not resigned. The company challenged the conduct of the Employment Tribunal hearing, particularly restrictions on cross-examination, and sought to reopen the factual issues. Permission had previously been refused on paper. The central question was whether the proposed appeal disclosed an error of law with a real prospect of success.

Lord Justice Mummery refused the renewed application for permission to appeal.

1. Limits of appellate review. Employment Tribunals are intended to be the fact-finding bodies in employment disputes. Except in rare cases, their decisions on factual matters are final. An appeal must be confined to questions of law and cannot be used as a retrial or rehearing of the evidence.
2. Control of the hearing. A question of law may arise from an Employment Tribunal’s exercise of its powers to control the proceedings. However, decisions about the proper subjects for further cross-examination or evidence are ordinarily matters for the tribunal chairman, having regard to the issues in the case. It requires a very strong case to justify Court of Appeal intervention in such a ruling.
3. Application to the case. The court considered the company’s complaint about curtailed cross-examination, the chairman’s comments concerning the conduct of that cross-examination, and the Employment Tribunal’s extended reasons. None disclosed a legal error. The company was seeking to relitigate the factual issue of resignation rather than identify an arguable question of law.
4. Order. The renewed application for permission to appeal was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 22 November 2001, Lord Justice Mummery refused the renewed application for permission to appeal.
• Employment Appeal Tribunal: On 19 March 2001, dismissed Read Vale Manufacturing Company’s appeal from the Employment Tribunal’s decision.
• Employment Tribunal, Manchester: Decided in favour of Mr McCormack, including a finding that he had not resigned. Extended reasons were sent to the parties on 17 January 2000.