Tribunal Judge Erred in Publishing Judgment After Claimant Withdrew Claim
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled that an Employment Judge (EJ) made a procedural error by issuing a judgment after the claimant had withdrawn her claim.
• public
Employment Tribunal Judge's Decision Overturned on Appeal
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has overturned a decision by an Employment Judge (EJ), finding that the judge erred in issuing a substantive judgment and subsequently refusing reconsideration after the claimant, Mrs. M Griffiths, had already withdrawn her claim. The case, Mrs M Griffiths v Scarista Limited (1) KKR Private Credit Opportunities Partners LP (2) and Alcentra Limited (3), highlights the importance of adhering to procedural rules regarding claim withdrawal.
Background of the Case
Following a preliminary hearing in December 2022, the EJ indicated that a judgment would be issued on December 19, 2022, unless the parties reached a settlement before then. On December 17, the parties reached a settlement agreement. On December 18, Mrs Griffiths wrote to the Employment Tribunal, withdrawing her claim and seeking its dismissal. Despite this, the EJ proceeded to issue a substantive judgment on December 19, dismissing claims against two of the three respondents. The judge also declined to reconsider this judgment.
The Appeal Tribunal's Ruling
Judge J Keith, presiding over the EAT, found that the Employment Judge had erred in several key respects. Firstly, the EJ should have treated the claims as withdrawn and dismissed them accordingly, rather than issuing a substantive judgment. Secondly, the EJ failed to consider that the claimant's withdrawal brought the claims to an end, treating them as 'live' when promulgating the judgment and subsequently refusing reconsideration.
The EAT concluded that it was appropriate to reconsider the EJ's substantive judgment and dismiss the claimant's claims based on her withdrawal. The appeal was unopposed by the respondents, Scarista Limited, KKR Private Credit Opportunities Partners LP, and Alcentra Limited.
Implications of the Decision
This case serves as a reminder of the legal position that a claim ends upon valid withdrawal, the point in time of communication, and that tribunals should respect a claimant's decision to withdraw their claim, particularly when a settlement has been reached. It clarifies the procedural requirements for dismissing claims after withdrawal and highlights the potential for procedural errors when these rules are not followed.
Read the entire judgement here: Mrs M Griffiths v Scarista Limited (1) KKR Private Credit Opportunities Partners LP (2) and Alcentra Limited (3) [2025] EAT 36
