R Smith v John Raymond Transport Ltd

An Employment Tribunal's reasons are sufficient if they enable the parties, in broad terms, to understand why they won or lost. They must be read fairly and as a whole.

A perversity appeal succeeds only where there is an overwhelming case that no reasonable tribunal, properly directing itself, could have made the finding. An appellate tribunal must not substitute its own assessment of disputed evidence through hypercritical scrutiny of isolated passages or an alternative preferred form of reasoning.

The claimant, a Black Jamaican man aged 77, worked for the respondent transport company for three days as an HGV driver. The Employment Tribunal dismissed his claims of direct race and age discrimination and harassment related to race and age.

He appealed from the Tribunal's decision, sent to the parties on 13 December 2021. The permitted amended ground alleged that it was perverse, or inadequately reasoned, for the Tribunal to find that Mr Woodward communicated concerns about the claimant's driving to Mr Harrison after returning to the depot on 4 December 2019.

The central issue was whether that factual finding disclosed an error of law.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the Employment Tribunal's finding that Mr Woodward had communicated with Mr Harrison was neither perverse nor inadequately reasoned.

2. Reasons must allow the parties, in broad terms, to understand why they won or lost: Meek v Birmingham City Council [1987] IRLR 250. The Tribunal's reasons met that standard when read fairly and as a whole. Although they did not specify the means of communication in the relevant passage, they made clear that any discussion could not have been face-to-face and that Mr Harrison acted on reports concerning the claimant's driving.

3. A perversity challenge requires an overwhelming case that no reasonable tribunal, properly directing itself, could have reached the finding: Yeboah v Crofton [2002] IRLR 634. Appellate review must not become a reassessment of the evidence through hypercritical examination of the structure or expression of the reasons.

4. The further information obtained from the Employment Judge confirmed that Mr Woodward's evidence was that he had sent Mr Harrison a message. That was consistent with the Tribunal's finding and with the subsequent allocation of a more experienced driver to accompany the claimant. The claimant's further allegation concerning the identity of the witness and dismissing manager had no basis capable of establishing an error of law or approach.

5. The Tribunal was entitled to prefer the respondent's evidence. Its detailed conclusions on discrimination and harassment therefore stood.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: dismissed the claimant's appeal: [2025] EAT 13.
• Employment Tribunal: dismissed claims of direct race and age discrimination and harassment related to race and age. The decision was sent to the parties on 13 December 2021.