Sivagnanasundarum v Whipps Cross University Hospital NHS Trust

An Employment Tribunal judgment may use a narrative structure, but it must contain both formal and substantial compliance with rule 30(6) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004. The relevant issues, relevant factual findings and reasons connecting those findings to the conclusions must be discernible from the judgment.

Only relevant issues and evidence require determination. In a case involving an accumulation of events, differing levels of detail do not necessarily constitute inadequate reasons if the tribunal reaches a unitary conclusion and deals with matters material to it. The Employment Appeal Tribunal may substitute its own conclusion under section 35(1) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 only where the necessary factual findings have already been made. Matters requiring fresh factual findings must be remitted.

The claimant appealed against the dismissal of four conjoined claims concerning race discrimination, contractual particulars and unlawful deductions, constructive dismissal, and victimisation. The Employment Tribunal had heard the claims over seven days and delivered a narrative judgment.

The appeal alleged inadequate reasons and non-compliance with rule 30(6) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004. The central questions were whether the tribunal had dealt sufficiently with the relevant issues and whether the Employment Appeal Tribunal could determine outstanding matters itself or had to remit them.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The Employment Tribunal’s judgment sufficiently dealt with the principal banding and constructive dismissal issues. Its narrative form did not itself make the judgment unlawful.
2. Rule 30(6) requires both formal and substantial compliance. The judgment must identify the relevant issues, determine the relevant facts and explain how those findings resolve the issues. It is unnecessary to address every allegation or piece of evidence. Relevance governs the extent of the required reasoning. The structure of the rule need not appear visibly if its substance can be extracted from the judgment.
3. The reasoning concerning the race-discrimination allegations about banding, grouping, consultation and the resulting band was sufficient. The findings and reasoning showed why the claims failed. The reasoning concerning the constructive-dismissal claim was also sufficient. In a last-straw case, the tribunal must assess whether the history, taken with the alleged last straw, amounted to a repudiatory breach causing resignation. Individual matters need not receive equal prominence where the tribunal reaches a unitary conclusion.
4. The judgment did not adequately address three matters: the alleged failure to respond to correspondence in the direct-discrimination claim; the corresponding allegation in the victimisation claim; and the claim concerning amended employment particulars. The evidence might strongly suggest that responses had been made, but the Employment Appeal Tribunal could not make the necessary factual findings itself.
5. Section 35(1) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 permits the Appeal Tribunal to exercise the lower tribunal’s powers or remit the case. That power permits a different conclusion on established facts, not primary fact-finding where the relevant issue was not determined. The three matters were remitted to the same Employment Tribunal, with reasons to be given under rule 30(6). The question of any award under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 was also remitted because its operation depended on the outcome of the remaining claims.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: allowed the appeal in part and remitted three issues to the Employment Tribunal for determination and adequate reasons.
• Employment Tribunal: dismissed the four conjoined claims, subject to the issues remitted by the Employment Appeal Tribunal.