In Edward v North London NHS Foundation Trust [2026] EAT 116, the EAT held that an employment tribunal had no power to make a consent order where it knew that one party had withdrawn consent before the order was made.
The appellant initially confirmed by email that he accepted terms resolving the outstanding remedy issues. No consent order followed and, through an administrative error, the claim was instead dismissed as withdrawn. Before that error was corrected, the appellant told the respondent and tribunal that he no longer agreed to the proposed order and wanted a remedy hearing. The tribunal nevertheless made an order substantially reflecting the earlier terms.
Construing former rule 64 of the 2013 Rules (now rule 62 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024), the EAT held that terms may be agreed in writing at any stage, or orally at a hearing. The tribunal then has a discretion whether to make the order.
Drawing support from Times Newspapers Ltd v Fitt [1981] ICR 637, the EAT further held that the rule may provide the mechanism for disposing of an Equality Act claim even where the parties’ private settlement would not satisfy section 144’s requirements. However, agreement must still exist when the tribunal acts. Earlier consent was insufficient once the appellant had withdrawn it. The order was quashed, leaving the remedy issues previously remitted in 2023 live and outstanding for determination by the tribunal.
