Enhancing Tribunal Assistance to Litigants in Person: Insights from Mervyn v BW Controls Ltd [2020] EWCA Civ 393

Introduction

Mervyn v BW Controls Ltd ([2020] EWCA Civ 393) is a pivotal judgment from the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) that delves into the responsibilities of Employment Tribunals (ETs) when handling cases involving litigants in person. The case centers on Ms. Mervyn, an employee who alleged unfair dismissal and constructive dismissal after leaving her position at BW Controls Ltd amidst claims of workplace stress and employer misconduct. The primary issues revolved around whether the ET adequately assisted Ms. Mervyn in formulating her claims and whether the tribunal appropriately managed the list of issues, especially considering her status as an unrepresented party.

Summary of the Judgment

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) initially dismissed Ms. Mervyn's appeal, leading her to escalate the matter to the Court of Appeal. The core of the appeal questioned whether the ET had failed to consider her constructive dismissal claim adequately due to her being a litigant in person. The Court of Appeal, after thorough deliberation, concluded that the ET should have amended the list of issues to include her constructive dismissal claim. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the case was remitted back to the ET for a rehearing specifically on the constructive dismissal aspect.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment referenced several key cases that shaped the tribunal's approach:

Muschett v HM Prison Service [2010] IRLR 451: Emphasized that tribunals should not create cases for litigants but should focus on the claims presented.
Mensah v East Hertfordshire NHS Trust [1998] IRLR 531: Highlighted that tribunals are not obliged to consider every allegation in an ET1 but can investigate on their own if necessary.
Parekh v London Borough of Brent [2012] EWCA Civ 1630: Addressed the flexibility of tribunals in managing and revising the list of issues during proceedings.
Scicluna v Zippy Stitch Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1320: Discussed the conditions under which tribunals might depart from an agreed list of issues.
McLeary v One Housing Group Ltd UKEAT/0124/18/LA: Reinforced the need for tribunals to clarify and possibly adjust issues to ensure justice, especially for unrepresented litigants.

Legal Reasoning

The Court of Appeal evaluated whether the ET had a duty to assist Ms. Mervyn in her constructive dismissal claim, given her lack of legal representation. The appellate judges determined that while tribunals are generally not required to consider claims not explicitly presented in the ET1, there are circumstances where they should assist litigants in person to ensure that justice is served. The tribunal's refusal to amend the list of issues, despite clear indications from Ms. Mervyn's ET1 and subsequent communications that a constructive dismissal claim was implicit, was deemed an oversight.

The judges emphasized that tribunals should not strictly adhere to agreed lists of issues if doing so would prevent a litigant in person from effectively presenting their case. Instead, tribunals should proactively seek to understand and, where necessary, expand the list to encompass all substantive claims, especially when the litigant's assertions suggest alternative or additional claims.

Impact

This judgment underscores the necessity for Employment Tribunals to exercise flexibility and diligence, particularly when dealing with unrepresented parties. It establishes a precedent that tribunals must be attentive to the true nature of a claimant's grievances and be prepared to adjust procedural matters, such as the list of issues, to accommodate comprehensive justice. Future cases will likely cite this decision to advocate for more robust assistance to litigants in person, ensuring that their claims are fully explored and adjudicated.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Litigant in Person: An individual who represents themselves in legal proceedings without the assistance of a lawyer.

Constructive Dismissal: Occurs when an employee resigns due to the employer's behavior, which has fundamentally breached the employment contract.

List of Issues: A defined set of questions or points that the tribunal has agreed to address during the hearing.

Case Management Order: Orders issued by the tribunal to manage the progress of a case, including the scope of issues to be considered.

Conclusion

The Mervyn v BW Controls Ltd case highlights the delicate balance Employment Tribunals must maintain between adhering to procedural agreements and ensuring substantive justice, especially for litigants without legal representation. The Court of Appeal's decision reinforces the imperative that tribunals actively seek to understand and accommodate the full breadth of a claimant's grievances. This approach not only upholds the integrity of the legal process but also promotes fairness and accessibility within employment law proceedings.

Moving forward, ETs are encouraged to adopt a more proactive stance in assisting litigants in person, ensuring that all relevant claims are duly considered. This case serves as a benchmark for tribunal conduct, reminding adjudicators of their role in facilitating justice beyond rigid procedural confines.