Employment tribunal's decision on procedural fairness

Introduction

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) recently addressed a significant procedural issue in the case of Mr E Kamphues vs Venator Materials UK Ltd, [2025] EAT 30. The EAT overturned a decision by the Employment Tribunal to strike out Mr Kamphues' claims, citing a failure to properly assess whether a fair trial was still possible.

Background

Mr Kamphues, a former employee of Venator Materials UK Ltd, had brought forward claims of unfair dismissal, unauthorised deduction from wages, public interest disclosure detriment, and direct race discrimination. These claims were initially struck out by the Employment Tribunal due to Mr Kamphues' alleged failure to comply with procedural orders and actively pursue his case.

Procedural History

The case had a complex procedural history, marked by multiple applications for postponements and a series of case management orders. The claimant, representing himself, faced challenges in complying with these orders, leading to the Tribunal's decision to strike out the claims.

Employment Tribunal's Decision

The Employment Tribunal, presided over by Employment Judge Pitt, concluded that Mr Kamphues had not complied with procedural orders and had not actively pursued his case. The Tribunal struck out the claims under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013, now Rule 38 of the ET Rules 2024, citing the claimant's failure to provide necessary particulars and engage with the process.

Appeal to the EAT

Mr Kamphues appealed the strike out decision to the EAT, arguing that the Tribunal had erred in law by not considering whether a fair trial was still possible. The EAT, led by His Honour Judge James Tayler, agreed with this argument, noting that the Tribunal had failed to exercise its discretion properly by not weighing all relevant factors, including the possibility of a fair trial.

EAT's Judgment

The EAT emphasised the importance of the overriding objective of dealing with cases fairly and justly. It highlighted that the Tribunal should have considered whether the claimant's conduct had genuinely made a fair trial impossible or whether procedural compliance could have been achieved through other means.

Implications for Future Cases

This case underscores the necessity for Employment Tribunals to carefully balance procedural compliance with the fundamental right to a fair trial. The EAT's decision serves as a reminder that Tribunals must not jump directly to strike out decisions without thoroughly considering all relevant circumstances.

Conclusion

The EAT allowed the appeal, remitting the case back to a different Employment Tribunal for reconsideration. The decision highlights the challenges faced by litigants in person and the need for Tribunals to provide clear guidance and support while ensuring procedural fairness.

Learn More

Explore essential areas of UK employment law, including contracts, workplace policies, and discrimination.