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 >> Mitchell v Portland Plant Hire Ltd [1993] UKEAT 165_92_1803 (18 March 1993)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1993/165_92_1803.html
Cite as: [1993] UKEAT 165_92_1803
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE J PEPPITT QC
MRS M E SUNDERLAND JP
MR R TODD
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant MR P WALLINGTON
(OF COUNSEL)
MESSRS HOLLOWELL &
BOLLAM
EASTON CHAMBERS
39 EASTON SQUARE
PORTLAND
DORSET DT5 1EB
JUDGE PEPPITT QC: This is the preliminary hearing of an appeal from a decision of the Southampton Industrial Tribunal made on the 13th January 1992 holding that the appellant had not been unfairly dismissed.
The facts can be stated shortly. The appellant had been employed by the respondents for some 12 years prior to his dismissal in March 1991 latterly as the skipper of the Lady Jane, one of two tugs which the respondents operated.
In March 1991 the two tugs were required to embark upon a voyage which involved them towing four pontoons weighing between 160 and 180 tons from Portland Harbour to Dartmouth, a distance by open sea of some 50 miles. The applicant, as skipper of the Lady Jane, refused to co-operate notwithstanding that he was required by his employers to do so, giving no explanation of any sort for his refusal. He was then and there dismissed.
Mr Wallington, on behalf of the applicant, in his amended Notice of Appeal, amplified by a Skeleton Argument which he has helpfully provided, attacks that dismissal on a number of grounds firstly relating to the safety of the voyage, having regard to what might be considered to be facts found by the Tribunal, secondly as to the reasonableness of the Respondents in accepting in the circumstances of this case, the applicant's refusal as grounds for dismissal and thirdly with regard to a number of what Mr Wallington describes as Procedural matters relating to the dismissal.
We make no findings of any sort on any of those matters but we are unanimously of the view that the applicant should be given the opportunity to ventilate them at a full hearing and we order accordingly.