Adequacy of Tribunal Reasons

[Thanks to Jane Russell of Tooks Chambers for providing this case summary]

The EAT (Bean J) has handed down its decision in Mak v Waygood Gallery , which is an example of the proposition that an Employment Tribunal must give adequate reasons for its decision. Meek v City of Birmingham District Council [1987] IRLR 250 and the Court of Appeal's Judgment in English v Emery Reimbold and Strick [2002] EWCA Civ 605 followed.

The Claimant, arguing constructive dismissal, complained about both the manner in which the Respondent replied to her grievance, which she said was negative and aggressive, and the length of time it took to provide a substantive response (four months). However, the Tribunal did not assess whether that conduct amounted to a repudiatory breach and, if not, why not, simply asserting that there was "no last straw" and at a different part of the decision "this is addressed later" (it was not).

The matter was remitted to a freshly constituted Tribunal.