L Ramos v Wolf Data Systems Limited (debarred) & Ors

A transfer of Employment Tribunal proceedings resulting from active judicial intervention is a case management decision. If made without a hearing, the written communication should identify the Employment Judge under rule 60 and give proportionate reasons under rule 62 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.

There is no right to have a claim managed or heard in a particular Tribunal office. A transfer may be made within the wide statutory discretion, subject to whether it causes substantive injustice. Rule 29 permits a case management order without prior representations, with subsequent reconsideration where justice requires it.

Where procedural errors cause no injustice and the only fair outcome is the same transfer, the EAT may use section 35 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 to remake and confirm the order rather than remit the matter.

The claimant brought nine appeals against letters transferring discrimination claims from the London Employment Tribunal regions to the Watford office. The claims were among numerous similar proceedings brought by him against different businesses. The transfers followed an earlier decision that claims in London and the South East should be managed together at Watford.

In all but the Wolf Data claim, the transfer communications did not identify the decision-maker and, save in that claim, gave no reasons. The claimant contended that he should have been permitted to make representations and that the transfers caused delay, prejudice and a risk to confidential information.

The central issue was whether those procedural defects required the transfer decisions to be set aside, or whether the EAT should confirm the transfers despite them.

1. The appeals were formally allowed in eight cases, but the transfer decisions were confirmed. The appeal concerning Wolf Data Systems was dismissed because the relevant decision by REJ Wade had identified the decision-maker and provided reasons.

2. The initial allocation of a claim to an Employment Tribunal office will ordinarily be administrative. A transfer caused by active judicial intervention is different: it is a case management decision. If made without a hearing, it should be communicated in writing, identify the Judge who made it under rule 60, and give reasons under rule 62. Reasons for a non-judgment decision may be very short.

3. The letters in all cases except Wolf Data Systems failed to comply with one or both requirements. In the Murat Tchoukour case, the decision-maker was identified but reasons were absent. In the remaining seven formally allowed appeals, neither adequate identification nor reasons had been provided.

4. Rule 29 nevertheless permits a case management order without prior representations. The affected party may ask the Tribunal to vary, suspend or set aside the order where that is necessary in the interests of justice. The claimant had sufficient knowledge of the underlying January 2021 decision and had in fact pursued appeals and requests to revoke transfers. The defects had not prevented a meaningful challenge.

5. There is no right to a particular Tribunal office or region. Under regulation 7, allocation and sitting arrangements are within a broad discretion. Following UKEAT/0359/10, a transfer may be made for any good reason, subject to substantive injustice.

6. No such injustice was established. Managing the similar claims together promoted the overriding objective: it informed respondents of related claims, avoided possible double recovery, enabled proportionate management, and reduced avoidable expense and delay. The asserted risks from postponed hearings and confidentiality did not outweigh those reasons.

7. Applying [2014] EWCA Civ 449, the procedural errors could have no material effect on the result. Exercising section 35 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996, the EAT remade the case-management decisions and confirmed transfer of every claim to Watford.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: In [2025] EAT 16, eight appeals were formally allowed for procedural defects in the transfer communications, but the EAT exercised its powers to confirm all transfers to Watford. The Wolf Data appeal was dismissed.
• Employment Tribunal: Claims initially allocated to London East, London Central or London South were transferred to the Watford office for combined case management. No lower-court neutral citation was stated.