S.I. 2004/1861; S.I. 2004/2351:
memoranda from the Department of Trade and Industry
Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of
Procedure) Regulations 2004 (S.I. 2004/1861;
1. The
Committee has asked:
Is rule 30(3) in Schedule 1 intended to apply
only where reasons are not reserved? If so, why is this not made
clear?
2. Rule 30(3) of Schedule 1 is intended to apply
only where reasons are not reserved.
3. This has not been spelt out because it seems very
unlikely that a party or the Employment Appeal Tribunal would
have any reason to make a request for written reasons if reasons
for the judgment or order at issue had been reserved by the tribunal.
This is because rule 30(2) of Schedule 1 requires that reserved
reasons must be in writing.
15 September 2004
Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of
Procedure) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (S.I. 2004/2351)
1. The Committee has asked:
Explain the purpose of the amendment in regulation
2(9)(c), given that rule 30(1) states that reasons must be oral
or written.
2. The amendment in regulation 2(9)(c) adds the words
"subject to paragraph (1)" at the beginning of rule
30(3).
3. Rule 30(1) provides that reasons must be given
for all judgments (and for orders in some circumstances). Those
reasons may be oral or written.
4. Rule 30(3) imposes a further obligation on a tribunal
or chairman to provide written reasons for judgments where the
request for them is made by a party or the Employment Appeals
Tribunal. If the request is made by a party, the obligation to
provide written reasons under this paragraph only arises where
that request is made orally at the hearing or in writing within
14 days (unless the time limit is extended).
5. It therefore follows that the obligation on the
tribunal or chairman to provide written reasons can arise under
paragraph (1) (where no oral reasons were given), or under paragraph
(3) (if oral reasons were given, but the request for written reasons,
if made by a party, was made in time).
6. It was considered that without the words "subject
to paragraph (1)" there was the potential to interpret rule
30(3) as listing the only circumstances when an Employment Tribunal
would be obliged to provide written reasons.
7. The words "subject to paragraph (1)"
are intended to have the effect that the obligation to provide
reasons in paragraph (1) is an overriding obligation and that
the limitations on the circumstances in which written reasons
must be provided (set out in paragraph (3)) do not detract from
that obligation.
8. The Department concedes that the purpose of the
amendment to paragraph (3) of rule 30 is opaque. It would have
been preferable to have amended paragraph (3) to read "Where
oral reasons have been provided, written reasons shall only be
provided: …". The Department regrets this lack of clarity
and undertakes to amend the provision at the next available opportunity.
It is intended to amend these rules for other reasons over the
course of the coming year.
20 October 2004
