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 >> Jago & Ors v Placketts Express Parcels Ltd [1993] UKEAT 226_92_1201 (12 January 1993)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1993/226_92_1201.html
Cite as: [1993] UKEAT 226_92_1201
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE J HICKS QC
MR A C BLYGHTON
MR A D SCOTT
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellants MR J A HOWLETT
(OF COUNSEL)
Jackson Quinn
46 Carrington Street
Nottingham
NG1 7FG
JUDGE J HICKS QC: This is the preliminary hearing of an appeal by the first named Appellant, Mr Jago, and 19 others of the original 29 applicants, against the dismissal by the Industrial Tribunal of their application for relief on the basis of, as they alleged, unfair dismissal by the employers, Placketts Express Parcels Ltd.
May I say at the outset, so that it be recorded, that although the name of the Union involved is not mentioned anywhere in the papers, the alertness of my colleague, Mr Blyghton, in the course of the submissions, to a particular name of an officer who is mentioned towards the end of the Tribunal's Reasons caused him, very properly, to declare a potential interest. Mr Howlett, on behalf of the appellants, after taking instructions, indicated that they wished Mr Blyghton to continue to sit and he therefore did so.
The Notice of Appeal raises alleged mis-directions of law on the part of the Industrial Tribunal as well as the ground of perversity, but Mr Howlett has pursued the argument on the basis only of perversity. The question, therefore, is whether we consider that any arguable case appears to justify a full hearing on the ground of perversity and the test there is, was this a decision which no reasonable tribunal directing itself properly on the law could have reached.
As to that, two important concessions are made by Mr Howlett. The first is the one which I have already mentioned, that there was no mis-direction on law on the part of the Tribunal; therefore this was a Tribunal which did direct itself correctly.
The second is that he disclaims any intention of attacking any of the Tribunal's findings of fact, by which, in this context of course, he means findings of primary fact, because he does obviously wish to attack the secondary findings of fact as to the conduct overall of the employers. However, there is no attack on the primary findings and therefore no need for us to be directed, or for an Appeal Tribunal on a full hearing to be directed, to Chairman's Notes of evidence; we can accept the facts as found by the Tribunal.
Once the issue is narrowed down in that way it is one that really admits of no elaboration. It is true that Mr Howlett points to certain passages in the Reasons of the Industrial Tribunal which he says shows perversity on their part, but we see no need or advantage in going through those one by one. The question for us is simply, do we see any basis on which it could be argued that the decision of this Industrial Tribunal was outside the range of decisions which reasonable Tribunals, correctly directed as to the law, could have reached. The answer is "no". We have therefore come to the view that this appeal should be dismissed at this stage.