EAT confirms COT3 settlement does not remove entitlement to written reasons

Background

In Jeffery v Givaudan UK Ltd, the claimant brought a successful unfair dismissal claim. At a remedy hearing, the judge refused to order reinstatement or re-engagement. A standard note was included in the written record of the judgement to say that oral reasons had been given and written reasons would not be given unless requested within 14 days.

The claimant requested written reasons within the relevant time limit but then entered into a COT3 agreement with the respondent and notified the tribunal of the settlement.

The judge then informed the parties that given the settlement, the claimant's request for written reasons had been superseded and the written reasons would not therefore be provided.

The claimant asked the tribunal to reconsider, but the judge declined. The claimant appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).

EAT decision

The EAT allowed the appeal. It held that the employment tribunal had erred in law by refusing to provide written reasons on the basis that the parties had settled.

Where a party has made a valid request for written reasons within the required timeframe, the tribunal is required to provide them. The rules do not give the tribunal discretion to refuse written reasons simply because the parties later settle their dispute through a COT3 agreement. Written reasons serve purposes beyond enabling an appeal. They allow parties to understand why they have won or lost and are an important part of procedural fairness. This remains relevant even where a party no longer intends to challenge the decision.

The EAT considered whether the claimant's notification to the tribunal that settlement had been reached amounted to a withdrawal of the claim. The EAT concluded the email confirming that a settlement had been reached did not amount to a withdrawal of the claim.

The EAT noted that settlement agreements will often contain express wording requiring a claimant to withdraw proceedings. The absence of such wording supported the conclusion that the claimant had not withdrawn his claim in this case.

The EAT substituted a decision requiring the tribunal to provide written reasons for its decision on reinstatement and re-engagement.

Learning points

Whilst this decision is about the obligation of the tribunal to provide written reasons, it highlights the wider importance of dealing expressly with any outstanding procedural issues when settling employment tribunal claims. Employers should ensure that COT3 agreements expressly withdraw the claim and address any pending procedural matters.

For more information or advice, please get in touch with Alice Mennell in our Employment team.