United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1994] UKEAT 1252_94_2305

Appeal No. EAT/1252/94

EAT/1253/94

EAT/1254/94

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 23rd May 1994

HIS HONOUR JUDGE SMITH Q.C.

MR K M HACK JP

MS S R CORBY

---

(1) MRS C HORST, (2) MS J JOWETT & (3) MRS A BURLEY          APPELLANTS

HIGH TABLE LTD          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING - EX-PARTE

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellants MR JOHN GREENWOOD

(Solicitor)

Michaels & Co

275 Commercial Road

London E1 2PS


 


JUDGE SMITH QC: We have considered this matter very carefully. We think leave should be given for this matter to proceed to a Full Hearing of the Appeal. We consider that the Appellants should give careful consideration as to whether they wish to amend the Notice of Appeal to raise other grounds of appeal. It must be a matter for them if so advised.

First, there may be a point to the effect that the Industrial Tribunal should have found that there was not a redundancy situation at all. That is the point raised by Mr Hack this morning. This is obviously a matter which must be looked at very carefully arising out of, particularly, the mobility clause in the Contract of Employment, which we have been referred to. Consideration will have to be given to that. We do not say one way or the other that it should be pursued, it is simply a matter that should be looked into. We give leave to amend, if so advised.

Secondly, we consider that the point should be specifically taken in the Notice of Appeal that there was apparently no individual consultation.

Thirdly, there is the ground of appeal which is in the Notice of Appeal, which we think is arguably a good point as well, although of course that must entirely be a matter for the Employment Appeal Tribunal that hears the Appeal in due course. Namely that there was insufficient effort in all the circumstances here, to find alternative employment, and that the Tribunal may arguably have erred in that respect. In our judgment there is an arguable case to be made that the Tribunal may have erred in relation to those points.

I just add this finally, in regard to the redundancy point namely that if it were accepted before the Industrial Tribunal that there was a redundancy situation or if it were formally conceded, in some way, before the Industrial Tribunal that there was a redundancy situation, either in writing or orally in argument before them, that would make the point that there was no redundancy unarguable. But on the other hand, if it were simply left to the Tribunal to decide the matter, then there may possibly be a point on that. But we consider that there are clearly arguable points on appeal with regard to the failure to re-deploy in all the circumstances, having regard to the decision of Vokes Ltd v Bear [1973] ICR 1, and also the lack of individual consultation. It may be that the Industrial Tribunal did not properly apply Section 57(3) in the circumstances. We consider that there is an arguable case to that effect and accordingly that the matter should proceed to a Full Hearing of the Appeal.

We also consider that in this particular case, especially bearing in mind that the hearing was apparently dealt with in one day by the Tribunal that the Chairman's notes of evidence should be made available to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.