L Chase v Northern Housing Consortium Ltd & Anor

The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the claimant's appeal and remitted the case for rehearing because the tribunal's long delay in promulgating written reasons, and the resulting rushed and poorly drafted judgment, produced significant errors of law and an absence of adequate reasoning that deprived the claimant of a fair trial within a reasonable time. The tribunal failed to address many pleaded allegations (notably multiple alleged failures to make reasonable adjustments) and wrongly treated properly pleaded matters as un‑pleaded or abandoned, without exercising a discretion under the list of issues in the interests of justice. The tribunal was entitled to make findings on whether the claimant was disabled and on the timing and the respondents' knowledge of that disability, and it dealt adequately with the direct disability discrimination claim; however it misdirected itself in law on section 43C(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 by treating the auditor as outside the section's compass. The proper result was to remit the case for a fresh hearing before a differently constituted tribunal without regard to the earlier findings.

Background and parties: The appellant was a former Procurement Director of the First Respondent (a non‑profit consortium purchasing body) who alleged a lengthy course of wrongdoing and poor procurement practice, repeated protected disclosures beginning in 2016–2020, and subsequent victimisation, harassment and detriments culminating in resignation. The Second Respondent was the appellant's former chief executive and line manager for a period.

Nature of the proceedings: This is an appeal against the Employment Tribunal at Newcastle’s written judgment (sent 3 November 2023) in which the claimant had advanced claims including direct and associative disability discrimination (Equality Act 2010 s13), failures to make reasonable adjustments (ss20–21 EqA), detriment for protected disclosures (s47B Employment Rights Act 1996), automatic unfair constructive dismissal (s103 ERA) and unfair dismissal (s98 ERA). The claimant appealed to the EAT following an earlier permission hearing before John Bowers KC which allowed certain grounds to proceed.

Procedural history: Evidence was heard 31 August–6 September 2022, submissions were heard and exchanged in late 2022/early 2023, but the tribunal’s written reasons were not sent until 3 November 2023. The claimant appealed on grounds including excessive delay and failures to give adequate reasons or necessary findings. The EAT heard the appeal on 12 June 2025 and handed down judgment 16 July 2025.

Issues for the EAT:

• Whether the tribunal’s delay and the quality of its written reasons produced an error of law or a denial of a fair trial (bringing s21(1) appeal rights into play as explained in Connex v Bangs);
• Whether the tribunal failed to consider pleaded reasonable adjustment allegations and wrongly treated them as un‑pleaded or abandoned;
• Whether factual findings on disability onset and employer knowledge were open on the evidence;
• Whether the tribunal misdirected itself in law in treating disclosures to an external auditor as outside s43C(2) ERA.

Court reasoning and subsidiary findings: The EAT concluded the delay (over 13 months from hearing to judgment) far exceeded customary timescales and materially contributed to a rushed and error‑ridden judgment. The judgment contained typographical and factual confusion, omitted consideration of many pleaded detriments and disclosures, and in places showed that the tribunal had forgotten or mischaracterised evidence. Those omissions were material: for example, the tribunal did not address whether a disclosure to the Chair of Audit and Risk preceded and influenced the refusal to extend occupational sick pay; nor did it engage with alleged public comments made by the Second Respondent. The tribunal was, however, entitled to make findings on when the claimant’s anxiety/depression met the EqA disability threshold and on when the respondents ought reasonably to have been aware of it. The EAT found no error in those disability findings. The tribunal did address the direct discrimination complaint and reached findings open on the evidence. By contrast, the tribunal misapplied s43C(2) ERA by testing whether the external auditor had "responsibility within" the employer rather than asking whether the procedure through which disclosures were made was authorised by the employer; the EAT held that factual inquiry as to the nature and purpose of the auditor’s appointment was required and the tribunal’s terse approach was legally wrong. Given the cumulative effect of delay, defective reasoning and material omissions the EAT allowed the appeal and remitted the matter for a full rehearing before a differently constituted tribunal.

Remedy: Appeal allowed; case remitted for rehearing afresh (the re‑hearing tribunal to have no regard to earlier findings).

Appeal allowed and remitted for rehearing. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the Employment Tribunal's excessive delay in delivering written reasons, combined with rushed, error‑ridden and inadequately reasoned findings, amounted to an error of law and risked denial of a fair trial. The tribunal had also erred in law by failing to consider pleaded reasonable adjustment allegations and by misdirecting itself on section 43C(2) Employment Rights Act 1996 in relation to disclosures to an external auditor. Some factual findings on disability and direct discrimination were nonetheless open to the tribunal, but the cumulative defects required a fresh hearing.

Employment Tribunal at Newcastle: judgment sent 3 November 2023. Appeal to the High Court: permission hearing before John Bowers KC on 29 February 2024 allowed specified grounds to proceed. Employment Appeal Tribunal hearing 12 June 2025; judgment handed down 16 July 2025 allowing the appeal and remitting the case for rehearing ([2025] EAT 104).