United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1994] UKEAT 264_93_0802

Appeal No. EAT/264/93

I N T E R N A L

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 8 February 1994

Before

HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC

MISS A MACKIE OBE

MR R TODD

---

MR R SCOTT          APPELLANT

WHARFEDALE PLC          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant MR M BARBER

(SOLICITOR)

Messrs Brearleys

1 Brunswick Street

Batley

WF17 5DT


 


JUDGE LEVY QC: This is a Preliminary Hearing on an appeal by Mr Roy Brian Scott formerly employed by Wharfedale Loudspeakers Ltd. There was a hearing before the Industrial Tribunal at Leeds on 2 January 1993. The decision was sent to the parties on 16 February 1993 where it was held unanimously by the Tribunal below that the applicant was unfairly dismissed and the Tribunal ordered the Respondent paid the sum of £3,845.

The nub of the decision is found in paragraph 5 of the decision which reads:

"There has been little argument other than that the dismissal was unfair because there was in fact no warning and no consultation. That has been admitted on behalf of the respondent by Mr Oxley and indeed Mr Jennings had made the admission on behalf of the company as well saying that, in the light of the decision in Polkey v Dayton Services, the tribunal is bound to find that the dismissal was unfair. So the main thrust of argument in the latter part of hearing has been concerned with the effect that consultation would or would not have had. Mr Oxley himself has said in evidence that he was not able to say one way or the other what the result of consultation would have been because it never took place. The tribunal considers that had consultation taken place the chance that Mr Scott would have been kept on was about 50%. The tribunal considers further that he would have continued in that employment at least up to this date and perhaps beyond. However, taking all things in the round, the tribunal has decided to deal with this matter by way of compensation in this way."

An award is then set out.

Mr Barber, who appeared before us today as he did below, says both in the Notice of Appeal and in his argument to us this morning that the Tribunal gave no reasons for picking the figure of 50% out of the hat and indeed they should have done. We consider that the Tribunal went into the matter fully, particularly when one looks at the recital of facts. In particular we refer to paragraph 4(f) where the situation which was going to obtain to the Company is set out at some length, it having been noted in sub-paragraph 4(d) that 5 employees had to be made redundant.

It is always difficult for a Tribunal to put a figure on chances but here we cannot see anything the Tribunal has done which was wrong in the way it approached the problem. It may be, as Mr Barber said, that the reasons could have been more fully fleshed out but, in the circumstances, we cannot think that this appeal can succeed and in the circumstances we do not think it would be appropriate for it to go any further.

In the circumstances we will dismiss the appeal.