(1)A complaint may be presented to an employment tribunal by an employee on the ground that—
(a)the employer unreasonably failed to provide a written statement under section 92, or
(b)the particulars of reasons given in purported compliance with that section are inadequate or untrue.
(2)Where an employment tribunal finds a complaint under this section well-founded, the tribunal—
(a)may make a declaration as to what it finds the employer’s reasons were for dismissing the employee, and
(b)shall make an award that the employer pay to the employee a sum equal to the amount of two weeks’ pay.
(3)An employment tribunal shall not consider a complaint under this section relating to the reasons for a dismissal unless it is presented to the tribunal at such a time that the tribunal would, in accordance with section 111, consider a complaint of unfair dismissal in respect of that dismissal presented at the same time.
Cases considering section 93 3
[2025] EAT 85 · 12 June 2025Interprets
Section 93(1) sanctions an employer that unreasonably failed to provide a section 92 statement. The court held that the test is objective and does not make every oversight unreasonable, particularly where the employee has already been informed of the dismissal reasons. (see paras [93]-[97])
Applying section 93(1)(a), the court upheld the finding that the respondent’s failure to answer the request was not unreasonable. The dismissal letter and later correspondence had already given the claimant the reasons for dismissal. (see paras [95]-[97])
[2017] UKSC 51 · 26 July 2017
The provision was used as an example of a statutory employment claim carrying a modest remedy, demonstrating why fixed tribunal fees could deter rational enforcement (see paras [31]; [96]-[97]).
[2012] UKEAT 0224_11_2803 · 28 March 2012
The respondent conceded, and the Tribunal recorded, that the claimant was entitled to an award of two weeks’ pay under this provision. (see para [10])
What each judgment says about section 93 is in the case-law panel in the full Act.