EAT overturns race discrimination decision after new evidence emerges
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has overturned an Employment Tribunal’s decision after new evidence came to light that undermined the credibility findings on which the Tribunal’s conclusions were based.
Background
In the case of Mayanja v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council, the claimant, who described himself as Black African, applied for a role as Refugee and New Communities Integration Officer with the Council. He alleged that the Council had offered him the job, then withdrawn the offer after raising issues about his application. He brought claims of breach of contract, direct and indirect race discrimination, harassment and victimisation.
The Employment Tribunal rejected all claims, finding that the claimant had not been offered the job and was not a credible witness. It preferred the evidence of the recruiting manager, whom it described as reliable and experienced, and concluded that the claimant’s evidence was inconsistent and, in part, fabricated. The Tribunal also awarded costs against the claimant.
After the hearing, the claimant discovered an email sent by the recruitment manager saying, “I’m pleased to say we’d like to offer you the job.” This email had not been included in the hearing bundle. The claimant applied for reconsideration, arguing that the email fundamentally altered the case.
The Employment Tribunal accepted that the email was genuine but concluded that the claimant could have found it earlier with reasonable diligence. It only reconsidered the costs decision, reducing the costs award but leaving the liability judgment intact.
The EAT’s decision
On appeal, the EAT found that the Employment Tribunal had erred in failing to reconsider the liability judgment. Once it had accepted that the new evidence could be relied upon, it was bound to consider whether that evidence affected the original findings.
The EAT found that the Tribunal’s credibility assessment was “fundamentally unsafe.” Its rejection of all claims rested on a global finding that the claimant was not credible and that the recruitment manager's evidence should be preferred. That conclusion had been “built on foundations of sand,” because it was based on the mistaken belief that the recruitment manager had not offered the claimant the job. The newly discovered email undermined that central finding and, by extension, the Tribunal’s approach to all of the claims.
The EAT held that the claimant could not reasonably have been expected to disclose the email earlier, given that the respondent had primary responsibility for preparing the bundle. The liability and costs judgments were both set aside, and the case was remitted to a differently constituted Employment Tribunal for a complete rehearing.
Learning points for employers
This case highlights the importance of robust document management and ensuring that all relevant correspondence is disclosed and included in the hearing bundle. It also demonstrates the risks where a Tribunal’s findings depend heavily on an overarching assessment of witness credibility. For employers, it serves as a reminder to maintain clear and accurate records throughout recruitment processes and to approach disclosure obligations with care and diligence in any Tribunal proceedings.
For more information or advice, please contact Eleanor Searle in our Employment team.