Geere v Worcester Citizens Advice Bureau & Whabac & Ors

Where a party has obtained an order that a pre-hearing review be heard by a full Employment Tribunal, determination by an Employment Judge sitting alone may amount to a fundamental procedural error. The error cannot be treated as immaterial where it is impossible to know what view the lay members might have taken.

Reasons for striking out claims and awarding costs must also be sufficient to explain why the decisions were reached. If the reasons do not clearly address the relevant circumstances or explain the sums ordered, the decisions require reconsideration.

The Employment Tribunal struck out and dismissed all of the claimant’s claims at a pre-hearing review and made costs orders totalling £25,800. The claimant had elected not to attend and had supplied written submissions.

Before the hearing, the claimant requested a full three-member Tribunal. The request was granted, but an administrative error led to the matter being listed and decided by an Employment Judge sitting alone. The claimant appealed, contending that the constitution was fundamentally defective and that the reasons for dismissal and costs were inadequate.

The central issues were whether the irregular constitution invalidated the decisions and whether the Tribunal had given adequate reasons for its strike-out and costs orders.

1. Appeal allowed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the absence of the granted three-member panel was a fundamental procedural error. The claimant had requested a full Tribunal and had been informed that the request was granted. As a matter of law, the pre-hearing review should therefore have been heard by that Tribunal.

2. The error could not be dismissed as immaterial on the basis that no differently constituted Tribunal could have reached another result. It was impossible to know what conclusion the lay members, with Tribunal and workplace experience, might have reached. Their views could have been influential or decisive.

3. Independently, the Employment Judge’s reasons were insufficient. They did not clearly explain why the claims were dismissed or why the particular costs sums were ordered. The reasons therefore did not meet the standard identified in Meek v City of Birmingham District Council [1987] IRLR 250.

4. The whole decision, including strike-out, dismissal and costs, had to be reconsidered. The case was remitted to a freshly constituted three-member Employment Tribunal which was not to include Employment Judge Tickle. The Appeal Tribunal made no decision on the merits of the underlying claims.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: allowed the appeal and remitted the entire case to a freshly constituted three-member Employment Tribunal.
• Employment Tribunal at Birmingham: on 31 October 2012, an Employment Judge sitting alone struck out and dismissed all claims and made costs orders against the claimant.