Gary Jeffery v Givaudan UK Ltd

A party who makes a timely request under rule 62(3) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 for written reasons following an oral decision is entitled to receive them. A later COT3 settlement does not, by itself, end that entitlement or give the Tribunal discretion to refuse the request. A settlement notification is not a withdrawal unless it clearly communicates that the claimant is withdrawing the claim. Whether an actual withdrawal can terminate an existing entitlement to requested written reasons remains open.

The claimant succeeded in claims including unfair dismissal. At a remedy hearing, the Employment Tribunal declined to order reinstatement or re-engagement and gave oral reasons. The claimant requested written reasons within the prescribed period. The parties later settled by COT3 and notified the Tribunal that no further remedy hearing was needed, but did not say that the claim was withdrawn. The Tribunal refused to provide written reasons because it considered the settlement had superseded the request. The claimant appealed that refusal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. The central issue was whether settlement ended the Tribunal’s obligation to provide reasons already requested under the Rules.

1. Appeal allowed on Ground 1. Rule 62 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 creates an entitlement to written reasons where a party makes a compliant request after reasons have been given orally. The Rules give the Tribunal no discretion to refuse that request because the parties later settle. They contain no provision that settlement, including a COT3, itself terminates the entitlement. The Employment Judge therefore erred in law.

2. The obligation to give reasons serves more than the purpose of enabling an appeal. Reasons help parties understand why they won or lost and support procedural fairness. Written reasons following oral reasons further that same function. The court also identified other possible functions, including an enduring record for parties and witnesses and material for an employer’s institutional learning. These purposes informed the interpretation of the Rules. The court acknowledged the workload involved in preparing written reasons.

3. The Tribunal’s settlement notification was not a withdrawal. A withdrawal must be clear, unequivocal and unambiguous. Applying the approach in Segor v Goodrich Actuation Systems Ltd (unreported) 10 February 2012, and the authorities discussed in McCrory v Healthwatch Stockport Ltd [2026] EAT 3, the court considered the wording and context of the email. It had been carefully negotiated by skilled advisers, and it said settlement had been reached and no further remedy hearing was required. Settlement agreements commonly state expressly when a claimant is withdrawing. The omission of such wording supported the conclusion that the email did not withdraw the claim.

4. The court left open whether an actual withdrawal under rule 51 would terminate an entitlement to written reasons already requested. It had not heard detailed argument on that question.

5. Applying Jafri v Lincoln College [2014] EWCA Civ 449, the court concluded that only one answer was available on the facts and substituted a decision that written reasons for the reinstatement and re-engagement judgment should be provided. Ground 2 added nothing to Ground 1.

1. Employment Appeal Tribunal, [2026] EAT 114 : allowed the appeal on Ground 1 and substituted a decision requiring written reasons.
2. Employment Tribunal: on 27 November 2024, refused the claimant’s request for written reasons on the basis that the COT3 settlement superseded it. On 14 January 2025, the Employment Judge declined to reconsider or vary that decision.
3. Employment Tribunal: after finding the claimant unfairly and wrongfully dismissed, the Tribunal declined to order reinstatement or re-engagement at the remedy hearing in June and July 2024. The claimant’s timely request for written reasons followed on 2 August 2024.