Kelly v PGA European Tour

An Employment Tribunal's reasons satisfy Employment Tribunals Rules 2013, rule 62(5), if, read fairly and as a whole, they identify the decisive issue, make the findings needed to resolve it, and explain why the party lost. Disorganised drafting, repetition, or imperfect expression does not itself establish an error of law.

In a direct age-discrimination claim, treatment connected with seniority or length of service is not necessarily treatment because of age. Where the Tribunal has found a prima facie case, it may focus on the real reason for the treatment. It need not determine unpleaded actual-comparator evidence or every evidential dispute if its reasons adequately explain its conclusion.

The claimant, aged 60 when dismissed, was the respondent's Group Marketing Director. A new chief executive concluded that the claimant could not perform the commercial role required under a new management approach. He sought to present the claimant's departure as retirement, referring to the claimant's seniority and length of service, and dismissed him when agreed terms could not be reached.

Before the Reading Employment Tribunal, the respondent conceded unfair dismissal. The remaining issue was whether age was a reason for dismissal. The Tribunal accepted that there was a prima facie case but found that the true reason was the decision-maker's genuine assessment of the claimant's suitability and performance, not age.

The claimant appealed on six grounds, principally alleging inadequate reasons, failure to connect the absence of a disciplinary process with age, failure to consider comparators, and inadequate scrutiny of the asserted capability reason.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Employment Tribunal had adequately explained why it rejected the age-discrimination claim. Its Reasons were not a model of clarity, but rule 62(5) requires sufficient, not ideal, reasons. Read as a whole, they identified the sole issue, made the findings necessary to decide it, and revealed the rationale for the result.

2. The decisive inquiry was the reason in the mind of the decision-maker. It was therefore relevant for the Tribunal to find what he thought about the claimant's performance and ability to fulfil the proposed commercial role. The Tribunal did not merely accept his credibility. It identified due diligence, adverse feedback, contemporaneous criticism, and his view that the claimant had not embraced the new chief executive's approach. It was entitled to find that the capability explanation was genuine rather than an after-the-event rationalisation.

3. The Tribunal had considered the connection relied upon between seniority, length of service, the absence of a disciplinary procedure, and age. That connection supported its finding that the respondent had a case to answer. However, treatment because of seniority or length of service is not inevitably treatment because of age. The Tribunal was entitled to accept that retirement was used to present the departure respectfully, rather than because age was a reason for dismissal.

4. The claimant had not pleaded or pursued actual comparators. In any event, once the Tribunal addressed why the claimant was treated as he was and accepted a non-age-related explanation, detailed comparison evidence was unnecessary. The Tribunal was also entitled to treat retention of other employees in the claimant's age group as supporting evidence, and the warning concerning poor administration did not apply because the respondent advanced a positive, non-age-related reason.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Appeal dismissed. The Employment Tribunal's rejection of the age-discrimination claim was upheld.
• Reading Employment Tribunal: The respondent conceded unfair dismissal. The Tribunal dismissed the remaining claim that age was a reason for the dismissal.