Employment Appeal Tribunal Overturns Decision, Citing Procedural Flaws
Hypervolt Ltd's appeal against a refusal to extend time has been allowed due to procedural errors by the Employment Tribunal.
• public
EAT Upholds Appeal Against Employment Tribunal's Procedural Failures
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has allowed an appeal by Hypervolt Limited, finding that the Employment Tribunal (ET) erred in law by failing to properly consider applications and provide adequate reasons for its decisions. The case, presided over by Andrew Hochhauser KC, Deputy Judge of the High Court, centred on Hypervolt's application for an extension of time to submit a response and for reconsideration of a previous judgment.
The original ET judgment, issued under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013, had awarded Mr. S Jackson £2,000 for unauthorised deductions and stated that he had been unfairly dismissed, with a remedy hearing to follow. Hypervolt appealed this decision after their application for an extension of time and reconsideration was refused.
A key issue raised in the appeal was the ET's handling of Hypervolt's applications. The EAT found that the employment judge did not properly consider the entirety of Hypervolt's submissions, nor did they provide sufficient reasons for rejecting the applications. This included failing to follow the mandatory process outlined in Rule 72 of the ET Rules, which requires an initial assessment of whether there are reasonable prospects of a judgment being varied or revoked.
The appeal highlighted concerns that the ET's decision was too brief and did not adequately address the specific points raised by Hypervolt, such as their claim of not having received initial notice of the proceedings. The EAT concluded that the original decision lacked the necessary detail to demonstrate that all relevant factors, including potential prejudice to both parties and the merits of the defence, had been properly weighed.
Consequently, the EAT has remitted the case back to the Employment Tribunal. Regional Employment Judge Burgher has been directed to reconsider Hypervolt's applications afresh, providing clear reasons and findings in line with the ET Rules and relevant case law, including the principles established in "Meek v City of Birmingham District Council" regarding the requirement for adequate reasons in tribunal decisions.
Read the entire judgment here: Hypervolt Ltd v Mr S Jackson, EAT 45
