Employment Appeal Tribunal Confirms Right to Written Reasons Post-Settlement
The EAT has ruled that settling a claim does not automatically extinguish a party's statutory right to request written reasons for tribunal decisions.
• public
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has clarified a significant point of procedure regarding the right to receive written reasons for tribunal decisions. In the case of Mr Gary Jeffery v Givaudan UK Ltd [2026] EAT 114, Her Honour Judge Joffe held that a settlement reached via a COT3 agreement does not automatically terminate a party's entitlement to request written reasons under rule 62 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
Background to the Appeal
Following a successful unfair dismissal claim, the claimant, Mr Gary Jeffery, sought reinstatement or re-engagement. The Employment Judge (EJ) declined this application and provided oral reasons at the hearing. The claimant subsequently submitted a valid request for those reasons to be put in writing, as permitted by tribunal rules.
Before the written reasons were issued, the parties reached a settlement through ACAS. Upon being notified of the settlement, the Employment Judge decided that the proceedings had come to an end, and consequently, she refused to provide the requested written reasons. The claimant appealed this decision.
The EAT Ruling
Her Honour Judge Joffe found that the Employment Judge had erred in law. The EAT emphasised that there is no provision within the rules to suggest that a settlement terminates the entitlement to written reasons once a valid request has been made.
The judgment highlighted the importance of written reasons as a component of procedural fairness. These reasons enable parties to fully understand the tribunal's findings, which is a vital aspect of justice. The EAT noted that while there are heavy administrative burdens on judges, the right to receive reasons is a clear statutory entitlement that cannot be bypassed simply because a dispute has been settled.
No Implicit Withdrawal
The EAT further clarified that the claimant's notification of the settlement did not constitute a withdrawal of the claim under rule 51. The court observed that the communication regarding the settlement had been carefully drafted by legal professionals and contained no language suggesting the claimant intended to abandon his request for written reasons.
The appeal was allowed on the first ground, and the EAT substituted a decision requiring the Employment Tribunal to provide the written reasons for the original re-employment judgment.
Read the entire judgment here: Mr Gary Jeffery v Givaudan UK Ltd [2026] EAT 114
