[Thanks to Rad Kohanzad, pupil at Old Square Chambers for preparing this case summary]
Greenwood v NWF Retail is an important case dealing with whether a tribunal's written reasons go into sufficient detail to satisfy the tribunal's statutory obligation to give reasons. The EAT made it clear that an employment tribunal is required to comply with rule 30(6) Employment Tribunal Rules (amongst other things, to decide relevant facts and how those facts should be applied to the law) and that failure to do so in substance will amount to an error of law.
The EAT held that "a judgment will not be erroneous simply because the structure of the rule is not visible on the surface of the decision". On the other hand, the "constituent parts will need to be more than a formal statement paying lip service to the subparagraphs of the rule" (paragraph 56).
The well known case of Meek v City of Birmingham District Council continues to be relevant in helping decide whether there has been compliance in substance with the rule. But the EAT indicated that other caselaw which suggested that the provisions of rule 30(6) were not mandatory should not be followed.