Boam v South Staffordshire & Shropshire Healthcare, NHS Foundation Trust

An Employment Tribunal's reasons must identify the issues decided, the material findings of fact, the relevant law, and the application of law to those findings. They need not refer to or evaluate every item of evidence supporting each finding.

The required reasons are proportionate to the significance of the issue. An appellate challenge based solely on the omission of particular evidence will fail where the finding was supported by evidence, was not perverse, and the reasons, read as a whole, sufficiently disclose its basis.

The Claimant appealed from a Birmingham Employment Tribunal decision sent to the parties on 14 August 2014, which dismissed her complaint of unfair dismissal following her voluntary early retirement on redundancy terms.

She contended that the Respondent had failed to offer her suitable alternative employment during the redundancy process. The Tribunal found that she had quickly abandoned any wish to remain employed and had sought the best financial terms for leaving.

The permitted appeal alleged that the Tribunal had failed to identify or evaluate the evidence supporting that finding. The Claimant accepted that evidence supported it and that it was not perverse. The central issue was whether the Tribunal's reasons were legally inadequate because they did not expressly address particular evidence.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Tribunal's reasons were unsatisfactory and lacked clarity, but they did not disclose an error of law.

2. Meek v City of Birmingham District Council [1987] IRLR 250 and Rule 62(5) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 require the Tribunal to identify the issues determined, its factual findings on those issues, the relevant law, and how that law was applied. They do not require a recital and evaluation of evidence supporting every finding of fact.

3. The adequacy of reasons is not defeated by an omission of a particular witness's evidence or document. Faulkner v University of Manchester showed the material distinction between such an omission and a structural failure to identify and engage with a party's case. Rule 62(4) further requires reasons proportionate to the significance of the issue.

4. Here, the Claimant accepted that the finding that she did not wish to be redeployed was supported by evidence and was not perverse. That finding was sufficient to dispose of the suitable-alternative-employment issue. Further, the reasons, read as a whole, explained the conclusion: the Tribunal generally preferred the Respondent's evidence and had recorded material from which it could infer that the Claimant chose financial terms for leaving rather than continued employment. The email relied upon by the Claimant did not require express treatment and, in context, could concern the compensation package rather than a genuine wish for alternative employment.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Appeal dismissed: [2015] UKEAT 0138_15_1108.
• Employment Tribunal (Birmingham): The Claimant's unfair-dismissal claim was dismissed by a decision sent to the parties on 14 August 2014.