Igbinake v Clarkson House Residential Care Home Ltd (t/a The Vicarage Residential Care Home)

An Employment Tribunal must provide adequate reasons for its decision. Its duty under rule 30 cannot be confined to a particular issue raised in a party’s request for reasons. Where full reasons were given orally, they should be transcribed, corrected and issued in accordance with the applicable procedural rules.

Reasons which merely state that a witness was credible, without explaining why that evidence was accepted, are inadequate. Where the absence of reasons prevents an effective appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal may use the Burns-Barke procedure to obtain the original oral reasons rather than order an immediate rehearing. That course may be fair where it avoids unnecessary expense and prevents a party from gaining a rehearing solely through a procedural failure.

The claimant resigned from her employment as a care assistant and brought claims for constructive unfair dismissal and unlawful race discrimination. The Employment Tribunal dismissed those claims by a judgment dated 15 July 2011.

Following a request for written reasons, the Employment Judge issued a short document which confined itself to the perceived terms of the request and stated, without explanation, that the respondent’s witness was credible. The claimant appealed, alleging inadequate reasons, perversity and errors concerning the factual issues.

Both parties accepted that the written reasons were inadequate. The central issue was whether the appeal should be allowed and the claims remitted for a fresh hearing, or whether the original oral reasons could first be obtained through the Burns-Barke procedure.

Disposition

1. The appeal was adjourned. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the Employment Tribunal had erred in law by failing to provide adequate reasons, but did not order an immediate rehearing.

2. Rule 30 did not permit the Employment Tribunal to restrict its reasons to a particular point thought to have been raised by the claimant’s request. If full oral reasons had been delivered at the hearing, they should have been transcribed, corrected and issued under the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004. The failure to do so was an error of law.

3. The brief written reasons were inadequate in any event. A statement that a respondent’s witness was credible did not explain why the evidence was accepted. The Tribunal applied the observation in Tchoula v Netto, approved in Anya v University of Oxford [2001] ICR 847, that the basis for accepting evidence must be explained.

4. The claimant’s remaining grounds could not properly be determined without adequate reasons. Although a fresh hearing was sought, the Tribunal considered the Burns-Barke procedure appropriate. Barke v Seetec [2005] IRLR 633 recognised the risk that a tribunal might reconstruct reasons after the event, but also approved the procedure where it saves expense.

5. There was a real possibility that the original oral reasons had been recorded and could still be transcribed. In fairness to the respondent, which had succeeded below, the Employment Judge was requested under rule 30(3)(b) to provide, if practicable within 28 days, a corrected transcript of the oral reasons given on 11 July 2011. Further directions were reserved pending its receipt.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Held that the reasons were inadequate and adjourned the appeal while requesting a corrected transcript of any oral reasons under the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004.
• Employment Tribunal: By judgment dated 15 July 2011, dismissed the claimant’s claims for unfair dismissal and race discrimination.