Farrar v Chief Constable of North Yorkshire Police

An Employment Tribunal must give reasons which identify the legal test applied and explain how its findings of fact led to its conclusion. Reasons need not be elaborate, but they must enable the parties to understand why they won or lost and permit appellate review.

In an indirect discrimination claim, where justification is contested, the Tribunal must show that it has critically evaluated the asserted business need, the discriminatory impact and the proportionality of the measure. A bare conclusion that a PCP is proportionate is insufficient.

Where inadequate reasons affect all substantive claims and create a real appearance of injustice if the same Tribunal reconsidered them, the proper course may be a full rehearing before a differently constituted Tribunal.

The Claimant, a detective sergeant and primary carer of three young children, complained after a reorganisation required her to work three weekends in five. Following sickness absence, she was removed from her specialist unit and allocated to a uniformed sergeant role without consultation.

She brought claims of direct and indirect sex discrimination and detriment for protected disclosures. The Employment Tribunal at Leeds dismissed each claim in a judgment sent on 15 June 2011.

On appeal, the Claimant challenged both the Tribunal's substantive legal conclusions and the adequacy of its reasons. The EAT heard the reasons grounds first because their success could require a rehearing. The central issue was whether the Tribunal had adequately explained its conclusions on each head of claim.

1. Appeal allowed. The Employment Tribunal's reasons were materially inadequate on all three claims. The judgment did not sufficiently explain the route from the findings of fact to the conclusions reached.

2. Under Rule 30(6) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004, read with the authorities on reasons, a Tribunal must identify the relevant issues, findings and law, and explain their application. It need not provide elaborate analysis, but it must tell the parties why they won or lost and allow an appellate court to identify any error of law.

3. On indirect discrimination, the parties had advanced different tests for justification. The Tribunal neither stated which test it adopted nor explained whether the tests were reconcilable. Its bare conclusion that the PCP was proportionate did not resolve the disputed questions of need, reasonable necessity and proportionality. The asserted need for seven-day cover did not, without analysis, justify the particular shift change imposed on the Claimant.

4. On direct discrimination, the Tribunal accepted that facts existed from which less favourable treatment could be inferred, but gave no adequate reason for finding that the treatment was not because of sex. Its earlier factual findings did not explain that conclusion.

5. On protected-disclosure detriment, the Tribunal did not explain why it rejected an inference of causation or why the sergeants' review was the sole cause of the transfer, despite findings critical of the Respondent's conduct.

6. The defects were fundamental. Applying the remittal guidance, the EAT held that reconsideration by the same Tribunal carried a real risk and appearance of injustice. The claims were remitted for a full rehearing before a differently constituted Tribunal.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: appeal allowed; all claims remitted for a full rehearing before a differently constituted Tribunal.
• Employment Tribunal, Leeds: judgment sent on 15 June 2011 dismissing claims for direct sex discrimination, indirect sex discrimination and protected-disclosure detriment.