In Mayanja v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council [2025] EAT 160, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that an employment tribunal had erred by failing to revisit its liability findings after the late discovery of compelling new evidence that fundamentally undermined its assessment of the claimant’s credibility.
The claimant, had applied for a role with the council and subsequently brought multiple claims following his unsuccessful application. Central to his case was his assertion that he had received and accepted an unconditional offer of employment. The council consistently denied this. At the liability hearing, the tribunal rejected all of the claimant’s claims, concluding that he was an unreliable witness. A key reason for this was its finding that no job offer had been made. The tribunal preferred the council’s evidence in its entirety and went on to award costs against the claimant, holding that he had fabricated evidence and acted unreasonably.
Following the hearing, the claimant located an email from the council which, contrary to the tribunal’s findings, did contain an unconditional job offer. The tribunal accepted the authenticity of the email when reconsidering its costs judgment and substantially reduced the costs award from £2,000 to £200. However, it declined to reconsider the liability judgment itself.
On appeal, the EAT held that this was an error. The tribunal had relied heavily on its adverse credibility findings to dismiss all claims, but those findings were fundamentally undermined by the newly discovered email. The EAT held that the liability judgment was “built on foundations of sand” and therefore unsafe. It set aside both the liability and costs judgments and remitted the case to a differently constituted tribunal for a full rehearing. This decision underscores the importance of tribunals revisiting liability where new evidence strikes at the heart of credibility findings, and highlights the need for caution before making adverse costs orders based on alleged fabrication where material evidence later emerges.
Mr J Mayanja v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council: [2025] EAT 160
