Scott v Matthew Arnold & Baldwin Solicitors

An Employment Tribunal does not err by finding that an employer’s investigation of a grievance, raised in the context of anticipated disciplinary proceedings, was not reasonably objectionable. Where judgment and reasons are reserved, the written judgment is the final and authoritative expression of the Tribunal’s decision. A provisional remedy hearing date does not indicate that the claimant has succeeded. It may be listed administratively in case the claimant obtains judgment, and its retention does not alter the legal effect of a reserved judgment.

The Claimant appealed against the reserved judgment of a Watford Employment Tribunal, which dismissed her unfair dismissal claims. The Tribunal had found that the dismissal was fair and stated that, alternatively, the Claimant’s conduct would justify a 100 per cent reduction in any award.

The Claimant sought to add a ground alleging that the Respondent had failed to deal within a reasonable time with a grievance dated 21 December 2007. Her original ground alleged that the Employment Judge had announced at the end of the hearing that she had succeeded, with reasons and a remedy hearing reserved. The Employment Appeal Tribunal considered both matters under rule 3(10).

1. Application under rule 3(10) dismissed. The proposed grievance ground had no reasonable prospect of success. The Employment Tribunal had expressly considered the grievance and concluded that it was made as a defence to impending disciplinary proceedings. Its investigation in that context was not reasonably objectionable.
2. The original ground also had no reasonable prospect of success. The Employment Tribunal’s judgment and reasons were expressly reserved. A reserved judgment means that both the decision and the reasons remain to be delivered. The written judgment, signed and issued on 14 December 2009, was therefore the final and authoritative version of the Tribunal’s decision.
3. The Employment Judge’s account, accepted by the Tribunal members, was that no success had been announced at the close of the hearing. A provisional remedy hearing had been listed in case the Claimant succeeded after deliberation. Its continued presence in the list was an administrative matter and did not establish a judgment in the Claimant’s favour.
4. The appeal would proceed no further. Permission to appeal was refused.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: dismissed the rule 3(10) application and refused permission to appeal.
• Watford Employment Tribunal: dismissed the Claimant’s unfair dismissal claims in a reserved judgment with reasons registered on 14 December 2009. A review was refused on 26 January 2010.