Mak v Waygood Gallery Ltd

An Employment Tribunal must give sufficient reasons to explain why a claim has succeeded or failed. It must address the material issues identified for decision and explain the reasoning that leads to its conclusion. Bare conclusions that there was no breach of contract, no last straw, or no constructive dismissal are inadequate where the alleged conduct and its legal significance have not been analysed. An appellate tribunal may allow the appeal and remit the case for rehearing by a freshly constituted tribunal where the reasons are insufficient.

The claimant appealed against an Employment Tribunal’s rejection of claims for constructive unfair dismissal and breach of the protected disclosure provisions of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Tribunal had identified the relevant questions, including whether the employer’s conduct amounted to a repudiatory breach, whether the claimant resigned in response to it, and whether any dismissal was unfair.

The appeal concerned whether the Tribunal’s brief conclusions adequately addressed those questions, particularly the alleged failure to deal with a grievance and the terms of the employer’s later response.

1. The appeal was allowed because the Employment Tribunal’s reasons did not explain adequately why the constructive dismissal claim failed. A claimant is entitled to know why the claim was rejected, applying the principle identified in Meek v City of Birmingham District Council [1987] IRLR 250 and English v Emery Reimbold and Strick [2002] EWCA Civ 605.
2. The Tribunal had set out a list of questions but had not answered them. Its findings that there had been no breach of contract, that delay did not arise, and that there was no last straw were too compressed to resolve the issues.
3. The alleged conduct included a four-month failure to provide an adequate substantive response to a grievance, followed by a solicitor’s letter which the claimant regarded as negative and aggressive. The Tribunal was required to decide whether that conduct amounted to a repudiatory breach and, if not, to explain why not. It was not necessarily required to find that the letter was repudiatory, but a bare conclusion was insufficient.
4. Since the constructive dismissal claim had to be reheard, the protected disclosure aspect should also be reheard rather than separated from the main claim. The case was remitted to a freshly constituted Employment Tribunal.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: allowed the appeal against the Employment Tribunal’s decision and remitted the claims for rehearing by a freshly constituted tribunal.
• Employment Tribunal: rejected the claimant’s claims for constructive unfair dismissal and breach of the protected disclosure provisions of the Employment Rights Act 1996.