Daly v The Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

An Employment Tribunal must give proportionate reasons which enable the parties to understand why they have won or lost. Reasons must be read as a whole and in the context known to the parties, but the Tribunal must make and explain findings on each material claim. A limited financial value does not reduce that obligation.

Under Rule 76(1) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, a costs decision has three stages: jurisdiction, discretion whether to award costs, and amount. Establishing jurisdiction does not itself justify an award. The Tribunal must demonstrate that it considered its discretion.

The Claimant brought disability discrimination, harassment and public interest disclosure detriment claims arising from his employment as a health care assistant. The Employment Tribunal dismissed the claims after determining 27 factual allegations. It later awarded the Respondent £3,000 costs.

The Claimant appealed both decisions. He alleged inadequate reasons, procedural unfairness caused by late disclosure, and a failure to exercise discretion before making the costs award. The central issues were whether the Tribunal had adequately resolved the material allegations and whether it had followed the required stages for a costs application.

1. The liability appeal was allowed in part. The Tribunal's unusual allegation-by-allegation structure was lawful in principle. Its reasons had to be read as a whole and in the parties' knowledge of the evidence. In most respects, its factual findings and its reasons for preferring the Respondent's evidence were sufficiently apparent.

2. The Tribunal was not required to search the documents for points which had not clearly been raised or put to witnesses. Nor did the limited financial value of the claims permit a reduced standard of reasoning. Discrimination claims can have importance not measured by pecuniary loss.

3. The reasons were nevertheless inadequate in respect of allegations X and Y. Those allegations concerned allegedly false reports and allegations against the Claimant, and the alleged refusal to provide supporting statements or evidence. The Tribunal had to decide those distinct matters and explain why. Its reasons did not reveal either its conclusions or its reasoning on them.

4. The late disclosure did not make the hearing unfair. The Claimant did not seek an adjournment or recall of the relevant witness while evidence remained open. The material added nothing of substance to documents already available for cross-examination.

5. The costs appeal was allowed. Rule 76(1) requires three stages: deciding whether costs jurisdiction is engaged; deciding whether to exercise the discretionary power to award costs; and deciding the amount. The Tribunal moved from jurisdiction to amount without demonstrating that it had considered the second stage. That was an error of law.

6. The outstanding issues in allegations X and Y, and the costs application, were remitted to the same Tribunal so far as practicable. The Claimant's application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was refused.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: the liability appeal was allowed only as to allegations X and Y. The costs appeal was allowed. The relevant issues were remitted to the same Employment Tribunal, so far as practicable.

• Employment Tribunal, North Shields: on 30 May 2017 it dismissed the Claimant's disability discrimination and public interest disclosure detriment claims. On 13 October 2017 it awarded the Respondent £3,000 costs.