Housing Consortium Employment Tribunal Decision Overturned: Fresh Hearing Ordered
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has overturned a decision in the case of Chase v Northern Housing Consortium, citing unreasonable delays, errors of fact, and failures to properly consider the claimant's case.
• public
Employment Appeal Tribunal Orders Rehearing in Housing Consortium Case
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has overturned a previous Employment Tribunal judgment in the case of Mrs L Chase v Northern Housing Consortium Ltd & Ors [2025] EAT 104. The EAT found that the original tribunal had made several critical errors, including unreasonable delays in issuing its written reasons, factual inaccuracies, and a failure to adequately consider the claimant's pleaded case and evidence.
Key Issues and EAT Findings
Sarah Crowther KC, Deputy Judge of the High Court, presided over the appeal and highlighted several shortcomings in the original tribunal's handling of the case. These included:
- Unreasonable Delay: The EAT noted a significant delay of over 13 months between the evidence hearing and the issuing of written reasons, far exceeding the expected timeframe.
- Inadequate Reasoning: The original tribunal failed to make necessary findings of fact, provide adequate reasons for its conclusions, and committed significant factual errors. The EAT stated that portions of the judgement were "unreadable nonsense".
- Failure to Consider Pleaded Case: The tribunal did not properly consider the claimant's allegations regarding failures to make reasonable adjustments for disability.
- Misdirection in Law: The tribunal incorrectly interpreted Section 43C (2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 concerning protected disclosures to external auditors.
Whistleblowing and Protected Disclosures
The case involves allegations of whistleblowing by Mrs Chase, who raised concerns about the Northern Housing Consortium's internal procedures and adherence to procurement and contract terms. She claimed she made protected disclosures regarding potential fraud and non-compliance with EU Procurement law.
Disability Discrimination Claims
Mrs Chase also brought claims of direct and associative disability discrimination and failures to make reasonable adjustments for her anxiety-related condition. The EAT found that the original tribunal had wrongly treated some of these claims as new allegations, despite being properly pleaded.
Outcome: Fresh Hearing Ordered
Due to the numerous errors and failures, the EAT has ordered a fresh hearing before a newly constituted tribunal. The new tribunal must consider the case afresh, without regard to any findings made in the previous judgment.
Lee Bronze (instructed by Worknest Law) represented the respondent.
Read the entire judgement here: Mrs L Chase v Northern Housing Consortium Ltd & Ors [2025] EAT 104
