Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Troll v London Borough Of Hounslow [1992] UKEAT 97_92_0412 (4 December 1992)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1992/97_92_0412.html
Cite as: [1992] UKEAT 97_92_412, [1992] UKEAT 97_92_0412
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE WOOD MC (P)
MR A D SCOTT
MR G H WRIGHT MBE
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant MR F SLEVIN
(Of Counsel)
Network for the Handicapped
16 Princeton Street
London WC1R 4BB
MR JUSTICE WOOD (PRESIDENT): This is an appeal by way of a Preliminary Hearing by Mr Troll from a decision of an Industrial Tribunal sitting in London (North) on six days in the Autumn of 1991. The Tribunal was under the Chairmanship of Mrs Stoll.
Mr Troll was alleging unfair dismissal by his employers, the London Borough of Hounslow. There was a unanimous decision that he was fairly dismissed and that his claims failed. In his Originating Application he complained that there had not been an adjournment of an internal hearing in connection with his redundancy and, therefore, he was not represented. Secondly, he said he was the only one selected for redundancy.
"There were others who were employed after me, but I was selected for redundancy."
Those were simple complaints. The hearing took all those days. He was represented by Mr Slevin of Counsel, Mrs Andrews appeared for the London Borough of Hounslow. We are grateful to the learned Chairman for the most careful and analytical decision in which a substantial number of matters which were raised at the hearing are dealt with.
Mr Slevin, before us, has raised six matters which he wishes to argue on a full hearing. He wishes to argue first, that the selection of Mr Troll for redundancy, rather than a Mrs Barrs, and the decision to do so upheld by the Tribunal, was a perverse decision. There were three teachers in the Business Studies Department and the Head of Department was a Mr Davies, the decision therefore, as Mr Slevin puts it, was between Mrs Barrs and the Applicant. Secondly, he wishes to argue that the finding that the offer of alternative employment was reasonable, was perverse. Thirdly, he wishes to argue that the failure to adjourn two meetings of the Governing Body in the early part of 1991 were errors of law and in any event were facts rendering the dismissal unfair. Fourthly, he wishes to argue that the selection of Mr Troll as a disabled person, he is blind, was in breach of Section 5 of the Disabled Persons Employment Act 1944 and lastly, he wishes to argue that the decision was being made under duress because of a deficit budget of the Local Authority. It is because of the depth of the feeling undoubtedly held by Mr Troll, as is evidenced from the face of the decision and such documents as we have been able to see, it is because of his disability, it is because, therefore, the facts of this case are rather exceptional, that we take compassion with him and allow this matter to go forward to a full hearing. But, Mr Slevin has referred to leave to appeal. The issue before us is not leave to appeal, we are looking to see whether there is an arguable case, an arguable point of law. Despite his submissions we have considerable doubts about this matter but are allowing this matter to go forward for the reasons which we have expressed. It should not be argued hereafter, at a full hearing, that we sent this forward on any other basis but it will enable Mr Troll to have his whole case examined. Whether it was reasonable to bring the appeal if, in certain ultimate events, will be a matter for the tribunal hearing the full hearing, we say nothing more about that at this moment.
We therefore give the following directions:
(1)The case will go to a full hearing.
(2)Leave to amend the Notice of Appeal subject to any objection from the Respondents at the full hearing, 14 days to be served.
(3)Respondents to answer, 28 days from here, 14 days after receipt of the amended Notice of Appeal.
(4)Bundle of documents to be produced.
(5)There is no need here for the Notes of Evidence.
(6)The estimated length, we will give one day for this case.
(7)Liberty to apply.