Tribunal Ruling Highlights Importance of Considering All Claims, Even from Litigants in Person
A recent ruling clarifies how Employment Tribunals must handle claims from litigants in person, especially when initial claims suggest further complexities.
• public
Employment Tribunal Overlooked Potential Claims in Rule 21 Judgment
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has recently ruled that an Employment Tribunal erred by issuing a Rule 21 judgment too hastily, failing to adequately consider the full scope of a claimant's potential claims. The case, Brown v East Hanningfield Pre-School, highlights the crucial need for tribunals to provide reasonable assistance to litigants in person and to thoroughly examine all available material before disposing of a case on paper.
Claimant's Initial ET1 Suggested Wider Issues
Mrs S Brown initially presented an ET1 form claiming unpaid wages, failure to provide a payslip, and a P45. Crucially, however, her ET1 also indicated that further claims might be added after she took advice. A supplementary document further expanded her case, referencing disability under the Equality Act 2010, allegations of bullying, and grievances that she claimed led to her resignation, causing stress and trauma. Despite this, the Employment Tribunal issued a Rule 21 judgment solely on the wages issue.
Rule 21 Judgments: A Careful Exercise of Discretion
Under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013, a judge can issue a paper judgment only if satisfied that the claim can be properly determined on the available evidence. If not, a hearing must be listed. The EAT referenced case law, such as Limoine v Sharma, emphasising that summary disposal is inappropriate when claims are unclear. The tribunal stressed that reasonable assistance should be given to those representing themselves.
In this instance, the EAT found that the scope of Mrs Brown's claim was unclear due to the ET1, the supplementary document, and her email indicating she was preparing a witness statement and bundle for a listed hearing. The judge should have sought clarification before issuing a judgment, and failing to do so fell outside the reasonable exercise of discretion.
Remitted for Reconsideration
The appeal was allowed, and the case has been remitted to the Employment Tribunal under the current Rule 22 for reconsideration by any judge. The EAT noted that while the respondent had made admissions regarding wages and the P45, their response did not address the wider issues raised by the claimant.
The judgment serves as a reminder that even in seemingly straightforward cases, particularly those involving unrepresented individuals, tribunals must take care to ensure all potential avenues of a claim are considered. The tribunal's role is to assist in the fair resolution of disputes, and this includes giving proper attention to claims that may be complex or require further development.
Read the entire judgment here: Mrs S Brown v East Hanningfield Pre-School [2025] EAT 201.pdf
