In all forms of professional drafting spelling, punctuation and clarity are important. In this case at the EAT, an Employment Tribunal was criticised for poor spelling and punctuation.

His Honour Judge Richardson wrote in the EAT judgment at paragraph 11:

“The Tribunal’s reasons contain an introduction, a section entitled “the facts”, and a section entitled “law and conclusions”.  They are, however, not as easy to summarise or analyse as might be expected.  Where we quote from the Tribunal’s reasons we have corrected obvious errors of spelling and punctuation, of which there are a number.”


As well as causing a red face for an Employment Judge because of his spelling and punctuation, the case confirmed once again that Tribunals must not substitute their own view as to a matter for that of the employer. The Tribunal is not there to decide whether it would have acted in the same way and dismissed the employee, it is there to decide whether the employer acted within the range of reasonable responses – if it did the dismissal is fair even if the Tribunal might have chosen to give a warning rather than to dismiss.