Langford v Barking And Dagenham Primary Care Trust

Where an Employment Tribunal's reasons on Polkey and contributory conduct are unclear, particularly where those issues were not fully argued, its remedy conclusions may be set aside and remitted for reconsideration. The parties must have a proper opportunity to address those issues before reasoned findings are made.

The Claimant succeeded before an Employment Judge on liability for unfair dismissal. There was no appeal against that finding.

The Judge made no compensatory award after applying the Polkey principle and made no reduction to the basic award for contributory conduct. The Claimant appealed the former conclusion and the Respondent cross-appealed the latter. By consent, both challenges proceeded to a full hearing.

The central issue was whether the remedy conclusions should stand where the Judge's reasoning was unclear and the relevant issues had not received full argument.

1. Appeal and cross-appeal allowed. The Employment Judge's conclusions on Polkey and contributory conduct could not stand because the reasoning at paragraphs 112 and 113 was unclear.
2. The EAT considered that the hearing below had, to the parties' apparent understanding, been directed principally to liability. Although submissions on Polkey and contributory conduct had been made in closing, they appeared to have been an afterthought and the Judge had not had the benefit of full argument.
3. The remedy issues were remitted to the same Employment Judge for rehearing. No further evidence was to be admitted on Polkey or contributory conduct; those matters were to be determined on argument. Evidence could be received on the quantum of any award resulting from the remitted hearing.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: allowed the Claimant's appeal concerning the absence of a compensatory award and the Respondent's cross-appeal concerning contributory conduct; remitted both remedy issues to the same Employment Judge.
• Employment Tribunal (London Central): found the unfair-dismissal claim well founded on 6 July 2012. The liability finding was not challenged on appeal.