Mears Group Plc v Vassall (Redundancy : Fairness)

An appellate tribunal will interfere with an Employment Tribunal’s case-management decision only for an error of legal principle, a material failure to consider relevant matters, consideration of irrelevant matters, a material factual misapprehension, or perversity. It must not substitute its own view merely because it might have managed the hearing differently.

A reasonable-adjustments complaint concerns an employer’s failure to act. Under Equality Act 2010, section 123, time runs from the employer’s decision not to make the adjustment, including the statutory deemed-decision rules where no express decision is proved. The tribunal must identify and explain that date before exercising the just-and-equitable extension discretion.

The claimant, a carpenter made redundant by the employer, succeeded before the Employment Tribunal in claims for unfair dismissal and failure to make reasonable adjustments for dyslexia. His direct disability-discrimination claim was dismissed.

The employer appealed. It contended that late disclosure and the enlargement of the issues had made the hearing unfair, so that the Tribunal should have confined the hearing to disability or postponed it. It also contended that the reasonable-adjustments claim was out of time because the Tribunal had not applied section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 or the guidance in Matuszowicz.

The central issues were the permissible scope of appellate intervention in case management and the correct approach to the limitation period for an alleged failure to make reasonable adjustments.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The challenge to the Employment Tribunal’s case-management decisions and to the unfair-dismissal judgment was dismissed. The appeal against the reasonable-adjustments judgment was allowed and the limitation issue was remitted.

2. The Tribunal had heard the parties on the late documents, the scope of the unfair-dismissal claim and whether to restrict or postpone the hearing. Its reasons showed that the relevant matters, including prejudice to the employer, were before it. The EAT could not identify an error of principle or a failure to consider a relevant matter. Nor was the decision to continue with the whole case perverse. The EAT could not substitute its assessment for that of the tribunal entrusted with case management.

3. The reasonable-adjustments complaint concerned a failure to act. The Tribunal therefore had to apply section 123(3) and (4) of the Equality Act 2010 to identify when the employer decided, actually or deemedly, not to make the adjustment. It then had to decide whether the three-month period had expired and, if so, whether an extension was just and equitable.

4. The Tribunal neither referred to those provisions nor explained how their statutory criteria applied to its findings. It also failed to address Matuszowicz. Those omissions could materially affect both the start date and the extent of any delay relevant to the extension discretion. The same Tribunal was directed to determine the commencement date afresh, explain it by reference to the statute and then reconsider any extension of time.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: appeal allowed only on the time-limit issue for reasonable adjustments; that issue was remitted to the same Employment Tribunal. The appeal concerning unfair dismissal and case management was dismissed: [2013] UKEAT 0101_13_1212.
• Employment Tribunal, London South: upheld the unfair-dismissal and reasonable-adjustments claims, and dismissed the direct disability-discrimination claim. No citation was stated in the judgment.