M Griffiths v Scarista Limited & Ors

A claim before an Employment Tribunal comes to an end when it is withdrawn under Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, Rule 51. The Tribunal must not treat the proceedings as live when considering whether to promulgate or reconsider a substantive judgment after that withdrawal.

Where withdrawal occurred before the judgment was sent to the parties, it was a procedural error to regard the judgment as regular merely because a dismissal order had not yet been made. If reconsideration admits of only one result, the Employment Appeal Tribunal may itself revoke the substantive judgment, dismiss the claims on withdrawal, and avoid an unnecessary remittal.

The claimant appealed against Employment Judge Burns's refusal, communicated on 30 January 2023, to reconsider the promulgation and publication of a substantive preliminary judgment.

Following a preliminary hearing on 15 December 2022, the Employment Judge issued written reasons, sent to the parties on 19 December, striking out claims against the second and third respondents. Before that communication, the parties had settled and the claimant had emailed the Tribunal withdrawing both claims and consenting to their dismissal.

The appeal did not challenge the merits of the substantive judgment. It concerned whether the withdrawal had ended the claims before the judgment was promulgated, and whether the Employment Judge should have reconsidered it.

1. Appeal allowed. The Employment Judge erred in law by treating the proceedings as live when the substantive judgment was promulgated and later published. Under Rule 51 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, the claimant's withdrawal brought her claim to an end when it was communicated to the Tribunal.

2. It was unnecessary to decide generally when a judgment is “made” for the purposes of the 2013 or 2024 Rules. On the claimant's account, the Employment Judge had indicated that judgment would not be made or given until 19 December so that settlement could be reached. The claim was withdrawn before then. In any event, the judgment was sent to the parties only on 19 December, after withdrawal.

3. The reasons for refusing reconsideration contained a procedural error. They described the substantive judgment as regular because the proceedings remained live until dismissal. That reasoning failed to give effect to the rule that withdrawal ends the claim. The Employment Judge did not instead reason that the judgment had already been made before the withdrawal was received and read.

4. Remittal would unnecessarily consume Tribunal resources because reconsideration had only one proper outcome. The EAT reconsidered and set aside the substantive judgment under Rule 68(2), and dismissed the claimant's claims against all respondents upon withdrawal. Under Rule 65, no copy of the dismissal judgment needed to be entered on the Register.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Allowed the appeal and set aside the substantive judgment: [2025] EAT 36.

• Employment Tribunal: Following a preliminary hearing on 15 December 2022, Employment Judge Burns struck out the claims against the second and third respondents in written reasons sent on 19 December 2022. He later refused to reconsider the promulgation and publication of that judgment in correspondence dated 30 January 2023.