Tribunal Upholds Transfer of Multiple Discrimination Claims Despite Procedural Errors
The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the transfer of multiple discrimination claims, despite errors in procedure, emphasising fair case handling.
• public
Employment Tribunal Upholds Transfer of Discrimination Claims
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled on a series of appeals brought by Mr L Ramos against various companies, concerning the transfer of his employment tribunal claims. Despite identifying procedural shortcomings in the initial handling of these transfers, the EAT ultimately upheld the decisions, emphasising the need for fair and just case management.
Background: Multiple Claims and Transfer Decisions
Mr Ramos had filed numerous claims, primarily alleging discrimination based on job advertisements. These claims were initially lodged across different Employment Tribunal regions in London. The Regional Employment Judge (REJ) for the South East region, became aware of the pattern of claims and suggested transferring the cases to the Watford office for consolidated case management. This decision aimed to ensure consistent treatment and prevent potential double recovery of damages.
Procedural Errors Identified
The EAT identified that in most cases, the letters notifying Mr Ramos of the transfer failed to name the Employment Judge who made the decision or provide adequate reasons for the transfer, contravening established procedure. This oversight was deemed a procedural error.
Overriding Objective and Fair Case Management
Despite these errors, the EAT emphasised the "overriding objective" of the Employment Tribunal Rules, which is to deal with cases fairly and justly. The Tribunal found that the actual transfer of the claims to the Watford office was justified, as it facilitated efficient case management, ensured all parties were aware of the related claims, and prevented potential double recovery.
EAT Decision
The EAT formally allowed the appeals relating to procedural errors but exercised its powers under section 35 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 to confirm the original transfer decisions. It stated that the errors had no material impact on the outcome and that transferring the claims to Watford remained the fairest and most just approach.
Applications Made
The EAT also rejected applications made by Mr Ramos, after being given sufficient time to prepare evidence, to reinstate previously dismissed grounds of appeal and recusal. The EAT found that the applications had no proper basis to be made and were dismissed by the panel.
Read the entire judgement here: Mr L Ramos v Wolf Data Systems Ltd (debarred) [2025] EAT 16.
