Collen v Partners of Haxby Practice UKEAT/0120/12/DM, [2013] All ER (D) 11 (Feb)
A divergence between a tribunal’s oral and written reasons would never, without more, give rise to a valid ground of appeal. Normally any written reasons supplied pursuant to r 30(3) of the Tribunal Rules would closely correspond to the oral reasons given at the conclusion of the hearing. The usual practice was that the oral reasons were recorded on tape and if a request for written reasons was made, a transcript would be provided to the judge, and would constitute, in effect, the first draft of the written reasons. There would almost always, however, be some degree of editing. However, every now and then there would be cases where the process of revision was so extensive that whether the judge appreciated it or not, the reasoning expressed in support of the conclusion differed in substance from the oral reasoning: sometimes the difference might be patent, but sometimes it might only be apparent on a careful analysis. Such a departure from the initially expressed reasoning did not involve any error of law. What ultimately
