Key Takeaways
- In Jeffery v Givaudan UK, the EAT confirmed that settlement does not end the right to written reasons where a valid request was made before the parties settled.
- An ACAS COT3 can settle the dispute without automatically withdrawing the claim or cancelling an earlier request for written reasons.
- Telling the Tribunal that the parties have settled does not necessarily amount to a clear, unequivocal and unambiguous withdrawal.
- Written reasons can explain remedy decisions, including a refusal of reinstatement or re-engagement, even where settlement rules out an appeal.
- Keep your written reasons request and all Tribunal correspondence, and state expressly in the COT3 whether the request remains live.
- Unclear wording may create an avoidable dispute about whether a claim, and the request with it, was withdrawn.
- Go Legal is rated Excellent with over 300 five-star reviews and 5/5 on Trustpilot and Google, placing our solicitors among the best-reviewed litigation lawyers in England and Wales.
Does a COT3 Settlement End the Right to Employment Tribunal Written Reasons?
No, not by itself. In Mr Gary Jeffery v Givaudan UK Ltd [2026] EAT 114, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that an ACAS COT3 settlement did not end a valid earlier request for written reasons under rule 62 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The decision matters where a Tribunal gives its reasons orally at a hearing and the parties settle before written reasons arrive. A COT3 settles the dispute between the parties. It does not automatically remove every outstanding procedural entitlement.
The practical position after Jeffery is:
- A timely request followed by notice of settlement: the request remains live. That was Mr Jeffery’s position.
- A message saying no further hearing is needed: this does not necessarily withdraw the claim or the request.
- An express withdrawal of the claim: this is different, and the EAT did not decide whether it would end an existing request.
The wording, timing and sequence of correspondence can therefore matter as much as the settlement itself.
What Was the Background to the Written Reasons Dispute After Settlement?
How Did the Remedy Decision and Written Reasons Request Arise?
Mr Gary Jeffery brought Employment Tribunal claims against Givaudan UK Limited for unfair dismissal and various money payments. The Tribunal found that he had been unfairly and wrongfully dismissed.
At a later remedy hearing, the Employment Judge declined to order reinstatement or re-engagement and gave her reasons orally. The written record of that decision stated that written reasons would not be provided unless a party requested them at the hearing or in writing within 14 days of the record being sent. Some compensation issues were left for the parties to agree or for a further remedy hearing.
Mr Jeffery asked in time for written reasons for the decision refusing reinstatement and re-engagement.
Why Did the Settlement Notification Create a Problem?
The parties then agreed a COT3 settlement through ACAS. Clause 6 required Mr Jeffery or his representative, within three working days of signature, to “notify the Employment Tribunal that settlement has been reached and that no further remedy hearing is required.”
His solicitors did exactly that. They told the Tribunal the parties had “agreed a settlement of the proceedings through ACAS” and that “no further remedy hearing is required.” They did not say the claim was withdrawn.
The Employment Judge took the view that the proceedings had ended through the COT3, which superseded the request, and refused to provide written reasons. Mr Jeffery appealed that refusal.
What Issues Did the Appeal Have to Decide About Settlement and Written Reasons?
Does a COT3 Settlement End a Timely Request for Written Reasons?
The central issue was whether settlement alone could remove an entitlement that had already arisen through a valid request.
Mr Jeffery argued that nothing in the 2013 Rules said a valid request stopped having effect on settlement. He also argued that once the request was made, the Tribunal had no discretion to withhold the reasons. The Employment Judge’s position was that the COT3 had ended the proceedings and the request with them.
Does Notifying the Tribunal of Settlement Amount to Withdrawing a Claim?
The EAT raised this question itself. If the email had been a withdrawal, it might arguably have ended the claim for the purpose of the earlier request.
The EAT considered authorities, including McCrory v Healthwatch Stockport Ltd [2026] EAT 3, requiring any withdrawal to be clear, unequivocal and unambiguous. Mr Jeffery’s email referred only to settlement and to no further remedy hearing being required.
Can Written Reasons Still Matter When There Will Be No Appeal?
This was the question of whether the appeal was academic. Under the COT3, Mr Jeffery had given up his right to challenge the re-employment decision, so he could not use the reasons for an appeal.
He wanted the reasons “so that he can understand the reasons for the decision in his own way and his own time more fully”. The EAT had to decide whether that was a sufficient purpose.
What Did the EAT Decide About Written Reasons After Settlement?
Why Did the Appeal Succeed?
The appeal succeeded because Mr Jeffery had made a compliant request under rule 62. That request gave him an entitlement to written reasons, and nothing in the Rules allowed the Tribunal to take it away because the parties later settled.
The EAT said there was “no discretion in rule 62 itself, or elsewhere in the Rules, for written reasons not to be provided if the party applying complies with rule 62(3).” It added:
“There is simply no provision in the Rules to the effect that settlement, whether by way of a COT3 agreement or otherwise, of itself terminates the claimant’s entitlement to written reasons.”
The EAT acknowledged the heavy workload of employment judges and the extra work written reasons involve. That pressure could not create a discretion the Rules did not contain.
On the academic point, the EAT held that a fuller understanding of why reinstatement and re-engagement were refused was a tangible outcome. It stressed: “It would be wrong to underestimate the importance of procedural justice to litigants; in some cases it may be more important than the outcome of the litigation.”
Applying Jafri v Lincoln College [2014] EWCA Civ 449, the EAT found only one lawful answer. Rather than sending the case back, it substituted a decision that Mr Jeffery must be given written reasons. A separate perversity ground added nothing and was not considered further.
Why Was the Settlement Email Not Treated as a Withdrawal?
The EAT held that the email “could not be construed as a withdrawal.”
Rule 51 of the 2013 Rules provided that a claim, or part of it, came to an end when the claimant told the Tribunal it was withdrawn. Rule 52 generally required the Tribunal then to issue a judgment dismissing it, preventing a further claim on the same complaint.
The EAT pointed out that the wording had been carefully negotiated by skilled advisers who would understand what withdrawal means, including that it ordinarily leads to dismissal. Settlement agreements frequently provide expressly for the claimant to notify the Tribunal that the claim is withdrawn. That customary step was not taken here. The Employment Judge had also relied on the fact of settlement, not on any withdrawal, and the EAT would not reinterpret her decision.
What Question Did the Appeal Leave Unresolved?
The EAT did not decide whether a genuine withdrawal under rule 51 would end an entitlement to written reasons that had already been requested.
It had not heard detailed argument on the point. It observed only that the important role of written reasons in procedural justice was likely to form part of the context for interpreting the Rules.
The EAT drew on established authority on why reasons matter and when a withdrawal takes effect:
| Case | Principle | Why It Matters |
|---|---|---|
| Meek v City of Birmingham District Council [1987] EWCA Civ 9, CA | Tribunal reasons need not be elaborate but must outline the relevant story, summarise the basic factual conclusions and explain why they were reached. | “The parties are entitled to be told why they have won or lost.” |
| English v Emery Reimbold & Strick Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 605 | Reasons support open justice, acceptance of decisions and the proper exercise of appeal rights. | “Justice will not be done if it is not apparent to the parties why one has won and the other has lost.” |
| McCrory v Healthwatch Stockport Ltd [2026] EAT 3, [2026] ICR 353 | Withdrawal occurs when the claimant informs the Tribunal that the claim is withdrawn, and must be clear, unequivocal and unambiguous. | Settlement correspondence is unlikely to be treated as a withdrawal unless it clearly says so. |
How Does the Decision Affect Employees, Employers and Employment Advisers?
What Should Claimants Do After Settling an Employment Tribunal Claim?
Claimants who want written reasons should make a timely request and make sure the settlement does not expressly give it up unless that is intended.
The EAT recognised that someone listening to a complex oral judgment, while absorbing whether they have won or lost and what that means personally and financially, “cannot realistically be expected to derive anything like the understanding that would be gained from having time to carefully consider written reasons.” For a successful claimant, the reasons can also be a tangible acknowledgement that the wrongs established have been recognised.
The main risk is unclear correspondence. Telling the Tribunal that no more hearing time is needed should not be confused with abandoning a written reasons request.
What Should Employers and HR Teams Do After a COT3 Settlement?
Employers should decide before signing a COT3 whether written reasons are useful, neutral or unwelcome, because an outstanding request by either side may survive settlement.
The EAT noted that reasons can give employers material for institutional reflection and learning where a policy or process has been criticised. They can also give individual respondents or witnesses an enduring record that they were not found to have committed discrimination. Where reasons arrive after settlement, they are worth retaining and reviewing.
What Should Advisers Include in Their Settlement Review?
Advisers should state expressly whether a claim is being withdrawn and whether any pending request for written reasons is preserved or abandoned. A settlement review should compare:
- The written reasons request and the decision it covers.
- The Tribunal’s written record of that decision.
- The draft COT3 and any notification clause.
- Any outstanding direction or further hearing listed.
- The message intended for the Tribunal and any reply received.
How Should a COT3 Address an Outstanding Request for Written Reasons?
What Time Limit Applies to a Request for Written Reasons?
Rule 62 of the 2013 Rules governed Mr Jeffery’s request, and the EAT noted it is materially the same as rule 60 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.
Rule 62 required the Tribunal to give reasons for decisions on disputed substantive or procedural issues. Where reasons were given orally, a party could request written reasons at the hearing or within 14 days after the written record of the decision was sent. The written record in Jeffery stated the consequence plainly: no written reasons unless a request was made in that way. Note the date the record is sent to you, because the period runs from then.
Rule 62(4) required reasons to be proportionate to the significance of the issue and allowed reasons for decisions other than judgments to be very short. Rule 62(5) required reasons for a judgment to identify the issues, findings of fact and relevant law, explain how the law was applied and show how any financial award was calculated. The withdrawal provision, rule 51 of the 2013 Rules, corresponds to rule 50 of the 2024 Rules.
How Can Parties Preserve a Request for Written Reasons?
Parties who want an outstanding request to survive settlement should deal with it expressly in the COT3 and in the Tribunal notification. A practical checklist is:
- Confirm that a request has already been made, and when.
- Identify the exact decision the request covers.
- Record in the COT3 that the request is to remain live after settlement.
- Avoid wording that withdraws the claim unless both parties intend that and understand its possible effect on the request.
- Use consistent language in the Tribunal notification.
- Keep evidence of submission and any Tribunal acknowledgement.
The key distinction in Jeffery is between ending a hearing, settling the dispute and withdrawing a claim. They can overlap, but the EAT treated them as different steps.
How Can Parties End Outstanding Procedural Matters Clearly?
Parties who intend to close every procedural matter should say so in both the COT3 and the Tribunal correspondence, rather than relying on settlement alone.
Because the EAT left open whether a clear withdrawal would end a valid request, an express term dealing with the request itself gives greater certainty than withdrawal wording alone.
Frequently Asked Questions
Speak to an Employment Tribunal Solicitor About Written Reasons
A settlement through ACAS does not necessarily end a valid request for written reasons. Whether the request was made within the 14-day period, how the COT3 is worded and what was sent to the Tribunal can all decide your position. Unclear correspondence can leave both sides uncertain whether a claim was settled or withdrawn, and whether a request remains live.
Our solicitors advise employees, employers and advisers across England and Wales on settlement terms, Tribunal correspondence and the practical consequences of requesting written reasons. We can review your documents and help you decide the safest next step.
