University of Manchester v Faulkner

An Employment Tribunal must give intelligible and adequate reasons showing why each party won or lost. Its judgment should identify the issues, the parties’ cases, the material evidence and documents, and the evidential basis for its conclusions. A tribunal falls short of the Meek standard where it sets out one party’s case in detail but fails to explain the other party’s contentions or engage with material evidence relied upon by that party. Where the deficiency is fundamental, the Employment Appeal Tribunal may allow the appeal on inadequate-reasons grounds alone, set aside the liability and remedy judgments, and remit the claim to a differently constituted tribunal.

Dr Faulkner succeeded before an Employment Tribunal in claims for unfair dismissal and detriment for making a protected disclosure. The Tribunal awarded compensation in separate liability and remedy judgments. The University appealed, alleging perversity and inadequate reasons. At a preliminary hearing, the Employment Appeal Tribunal directed that the appeal should proceed, particularly on the adequacy of the Tribunal’s reasoning.

The central issue was whether the Employment Tribunal’s judgment properly identified the parties’ cases, the relevant evidence and the basis for its conclusions.

1. Appeal allowed. The liability judgment failed to satisfy the requirements explained in Meek v The City of Birmingham District Council [1987] IRLR 251. A party must be told why it has won or lost its claim.
2. The Employment Tribunal set out the Claimant’s submissions extensively but did not set out the Respondent’s case, the witnesses heard, the documents considered, or the material evidence relied upon by the Respondent. It merely stated that the Respondent’s detailed submissions had been considered.
3. The omissions were material. The Tribunal did not refer to documentary evidence, including evidence concerning relevant meetings and correspondence, which might have affected the issues it had to decide. Its conclusions were not linked to a properly reasoned evidential basis, and it did not explain why the Respondent’s case was rejected.
4. The appeal succeeded on the Meek ground alone. It was unnecessary to determine the perversity challenge. The liability judgment was set aside and the claim was remitted for rehearing to a differently constituted Employment Tribunal, having regard to Sinclair, Roche and Temperley v Heard (No. 1) [2004] IRLR 763 and Sinclair, Roche and Temperley v Heard (No. 2) UKEAT/0168/05/TM, together with the overriding objective.
5. The remedy judgment was also set aside. The Respondent was given leave to withdraw the perversity appeal.

• Employment Tribunal: upheld claims of unfair dismissal and detriment for making a protected disclosure, then awarded compensation in a separate remedy judgment.
• Employment Appeal Tribunal: allowed the appeal on inadequate reasons grounds, set aside both judgments, and remitted the claim to a differently constituted Employment Tribunal.