Faleye & Anor v UK Mission Enterprise Ltd & Ors

Employment Tribunal claims are not required by statute or formal practice direction to remain in the regional office associated with the claimant’s workplace. Transfer between regions is an administrative case-management matter. Regional Employment Judges may transfer claims for any good reason, subject to avoiding injustice.

Where related claims should be case-managed together, the judge may select the appropriate tribunal by weighing practical considerations, including specialist expertise, common issues, witnesses and potential applications. An appeal will not succeed without a real risk of injustice. There is no fundamental right to have an employment claim heard in the region covering the place of work.

The appellants brought employment claims in London South against UK Mission Enterprise Ltd and others. Related claims were proceeding in London Central, including a claim involving a state-immunity issue and overlapping restricted reporting order applications.

A Regional Employment Judge ordered the appellants’ claims to be transferred to London Central so that the related proceedings could be case-managed together. The appellants challenged the transfer, arguing that London South was the proper venue, that one appellant had not been formally represented at the hearing, that the reasons were inadequate, and that the procedure engaged Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights. The central issue was whether the transfer involved an error of law or injustice.

1. Appeal dismissed. The transfer order was a proper exercise of the Regional Employment Judge’s broad administrative discretion.
2. The practice of presenting claims to a particular tribunal office by reference to the claimant’s workplace postcode was not prescribed by the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure, any other statutory instrument or a formal Practice Direction. It created no jurisdictional entitlement. Claims could therefore be transferred between regions for any good reason, subject to the transfer causing injustice.
3. The related UKME claims properly required case management by the same tribunal. It was also reasonable to case-manage the Alsaes claim with them because of potential overlap concerning restricted reporting orders and common witnesses. London Central had particular expertise in state-immunity issues, and there was no prejudice in transferring the claims there.
4. An appeal against a case-management transfer required a real risk of injustice before intervention was justified. No specific prejudice was identified. The Employment Appeal Tribunal could also exercise its powers under section 35 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 to make the same order in any event.
5. The order was not invalid because one appellant’s formal representation was disputed. He had attended the hearing, the issue had been argued, and any application to set aside the order could have been made promptly. There was no conceivable injustice in the transfer.
6. The reasons were adequate. The decision involved a broad administrative discretion, and the reasons sufficiently identified why the cases should be managed together in London Central. The observations in Flannery v Halifax Estate Agencies Ltd [2000] 1 WLR 377 did not require every factual submission to be separately addressed in this interlocutory context.
7. Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights added nothing to the substantive arguments already rejected.

• Employment Tribunal, London South: A Regional Employment Judge ordered the appellants’ claims to be transferred to London Central and continued a restricted reporting order pending further consideration.
• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Appeal dismissed. The transfer order was upheld.