A secret recording without a transcript and a clear reason won’t count as evidence.
“EATStands for Employment Appeal Tribunal. It hears appeals from employment tribunal decisions on points of law, not on the facts. It is not a way of simply asking for a second opinion on the outcome. upheld the refusal to admit 39 hours of untranscribed secret recordings as evidence.”
A tribunal will not accept a secret recording just because you have it. Transcribe the part you rely on. Explain plainly why it matters. Skip either step, and it is likely to be refused.
- Find the exact passage in any recording that supports your case, and write it out in full before you try to use it.
- Explain specifically why that passage is relevant to your claim. A general account of what happened is not enough.
- If your case rests on recordings or other unusual evidence, get advice on how to present it properly before you submit anything.
The situation
An employee of a local authority secretly recorded around 39 hours of meetings and conversations with her managers and colleagues. She wanted to use the recordings to support several tribunal claims, including disability discrimination, whistleblowingMaking a disclosure about wrongdoing in your workplace, such as a health and safety risk, a criminal act, or a miscarriage of justice. If the disclosure qualifies as protected, the law gives you signi... detrimentAny action your employer takes that puts you at a disadvantage, short of dismissal. In a whistleblowing or discrimination context, being moved to a worse role, excluded from meetings, or given an unfa... and unfair dismissalA legal claim you can bring if your employer dismissed you without a fair reason or without following a fair process. You normally need two years of continuous employment to qualify, though some dismi.... She had not told her employer about the recordings. When she asked the tribunal for permission to rely on them, she handed over only a general description of why they mattered, not the recordings themselves or a transcript. The tribunal refused to let her use them.
What the tribunal found
The case went to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. The EAT agreed the recordings should stay out, though not entirely for the reasons the original tribunal gave. It did not think the recordings needed independent transcription just to prove they were genuine. It also doubted that all 39 hours would really need to be listened to in full.
The real problem was more basic. The tribunal could not tell what the recordings actually showed. Neither could the employer, and nobody could say why they mattered to the claims being made. Without a transcript of the specific parts relied on, and a proper explanation of their relevance, there was nothing for the tribunal to assess. The EAT was clear that this made the tribunal's refusal correct on the application actually put before it.
The EAT left the door open for a different outcome. A fresh, more focused application, backed by transcripts of the relevant extracts and a clear explanation of why they mattered, could well have succeeded.
Vaughan v London Borough of Lewisham and Others. UKEAT/0534/12/SM. Employment Appeal Tribunal. 1 February 2013.