When Does Inadequacy of Reasons Amount to an Error of Law?

Inadequacy of reasons amounts to an error of law where the Employment Tribunal's written reasons fail to enable the parties to understand why they won or lost. The standard was established by the Court of Appeal in Meek v City of Birmingham District Council [1987] IRLR 250. The tribunal's reasons need not be elaborate, but they must deal with the substantial points that were in issue, explain the findings of fact on material disputes, and set out the reasoning that led to the conclusion.

A failure to meet the Meek standard is a free-standing error of law. It does not require the appellant to show that the tribunal's conclusion was wrong — only that the reasoning is insufficient to explain it. Inadequacy of reasons is one of the most commonly advanced and most commonly successful grounds of appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, because it goes directly to the quality of the tribunal's decision-making process.

Legal Framework

The Meek Standard

In Meek v City of Birmingham District Council [1987] IRLR 250, the Court of Appeal held that the decision of an Employment Tribunal is not required to be an elaborate formalistic product of refined legal draftsmanship, but it must contain an outline of the story which has given rise to the complaint and a summary of the tribunal's basic factual conclusions and a statement of the reasons which have led them to reach the conclusion which they do on those basic facts. The parties are entitled to be told why they have won or lost.

This standard has been applied consistently in the decades since Meek was decided. It requires the tribunal to address the principal issues, make findings on the material facts in dispute, and explain the reasoning that connects the findings to the conclusion. It does not require the tribunal to deal with every argument, every piece of evidence, or every factual detail.

The Approach in DPP Law Ltd v Greenberg

In DPP Law Ltd v Greenberg [2021] IRLR 1016, the Court of Appeal provided important guidance on how reasons challenges should be approached. The court emphasised that reasons should be read as a whole and in a fair and sensible way, not subjected to hypercritical analysis. It held that the Employment Appeal Tribunal should look at the substance of the reasoning rather than engaging in a minute textual analysis of individual sentences.

Greenberg also cautioned against the tendency to find inadequacy of reasons wherever a tribunal's judgment could have been better expressed. The test is not whether the reasons are perfect but whether they are sufficient to enable the parties to understand the basis of the decision. An imperfect expression of adequate reasoning does not amount to an error of law.

Categories of Inadequacy

Inadequacy of reasons can take several forms. The most common is a failure to make findings on a material factual dispute. Where the parties contested a key issue of fact and the tribunal's reasons do not resolve it, the reasons are inadequate because the parties cannot understand how the issue was determined.

A second form is internal inconsistency. Where the tribunal makes findings that are contradictory and the reasons do not explain or resolve the contradiction, the reasoning is inadequate. The parties are left unable to understand which finding the tribunal relied upon.

A third form is a gap in the reasoning chain. The tribunal may make findings A and B and then reach conclusion C without explaining the logical step that connects them. If the connection is not self-evident, the reasons are inadequate.

A fourth form arises in discrimination cases where the tribunal is required to follow a structured approach — such as the burden of proof analysis under section 136 of the Equality Act 2010 — and fails to address each stage of the analysis. The omission of a required analytical step may render the reasons inadequate.

Common Errors and Misconceptions

The most common error is to equate brief reasons with inadequate reasons. Brevity is not in itself a ground of appeal. The Meek standard requires adequacy, not length. A short judgment that addresses the material issues and explains the reasoning may be perfectly adequate, while a lengthy judgment that fails to deal with a key issue may be inadequate.

Another misconception is that every omission from the written reasons amounts to an error of law. The Employment Tribunal is not required to deal with every argument raised by the parties or to refer to every piece of evidence. The obligation is to address the principal issues. A failure to mention a peripheral matter does not render the reasons inadequate.

Some appellants confuse inadequacy of reasons with disagreement with the reasons. A party may read the tribunal's reasons and understand perfectly well why they lost but disagree with the reasoning. That is not an inadequacy of reasons — it is a challenge to the substance of the decision, which requires a different ground of appeal.

A further error is to approach the reasons with excessive forensic scrutiny, looking for minor imprecisions or ambiguities. The Court of Appeal in Greenberg warned against this approach. Reasons are to be read generously and as a whole, not parsed for technical defects. The question is whether the substance of the reasoning is sufficient, not whether every sentence is perfectly expressed.

Appellants sometimes argue that the tribunal failed to consider relevant evidence by pointing to the absence of a reference to that evidence in the reasons. This is a common confusion. A tribunal may consider evidence without referring to it expressly. The absence of a reference to specific evidence does not, without more, establish that it was not considered.

Practical Application

When analysing an Employment Tribunal's written reasons for potential inadequacy, the approach should be systematic. The starting point is to identify the issues that were before the tribunal — the claims, the defences, and the factual disputes. The next step is to check whether the tribunal made findings on each material factual dispute and whether it addressed each legal issue.

Where a gap is identified, the question is whether it is material. A gap in the reasoning that does not affect the outcome — for example, a failure to make a finding on a factual issue that was not determinative — will not support a successful appeal. The gap must relate to an issue that was central to the decision.

In discrimination cases, the structured approach required by section 136 of the Equality Act 2010 provides a useful framework for identifying inadequacy. If the tribunal did not address whether the claimant established a prima facie case, or did not explain why it concluded that the respondent's explanation was or was not adequate, the reasoning may be insufficient.

The grounds of appeal should identify the specific issue that was not adequately addressed, explain why it was material, and indicate the paragraph or section of the reasons where the gap appears. The sift judge will assess whether the omission is genuine and material. Generalised complaints about the quality of the reasoning are ineffective.

Process and Timing

The 42-day time limit applies. Grounds based on inadequacy of reasons should reference the specific paragraphs of the written reasons that are said to be deficient. The appeal is determined on the basis of the written reasons as they stand; the Employment Appeal Tribunal will not consider what the tribunal might have said if it had addressed the issue.

If the appeal succeeds on the ground of inadequacy of reasons, the usual remedy is a remission to the Employment Tribunal. The EAT may remit to the same tribunal to provide supplementary reasons, or to a differently constituted tribunal for a rehearing. The choice depends on the nature and extent of the inadequacy. Where the gap is narrow and confined, supplementary reasons may suffice. Where the inadequacy is fundamental, a rehearing is more likely.

When to Seek Specialist Counsel

Identifying genuine inadequacy of reasons requires a careful and analytical reading of the written reasons against the issues that were before the tribunal. A specialist can distinguish between a real gap in the reasoning and a mere imperfection of expression. A specialist can also assess whether the gap is material — that is, whether it affected the outcome — and can draft grounds that are focused on the genuine deficiency rather than on peripheral complaints.

Where the reasons are lengthy and complex, a specialist's input is particularly valuable in identifying the specific inadequacy and presenting it in a way that the sift judge can quickly understand.

Frequently Asked Questions