At the Tribunal
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC
MISS J W COLLERSON
MS D WARWICK
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant MR N FAIRWEATHER
(Solicitor)
Mesdames Harman & Harman
Solicitors
10 Station Road West
Canterbury
Kent
CT2 8AN
HIS HONOUR JUDGE LEVY QC: On the 5th June 1992 Thomas Reginald Hart was dismissed from his employment with John Parker & Son Ltd. On the 18th August 1992 an IT 1 was received by the Industrial Tribunal claiming that he was unfairly dismissed.
The Respondents answer came in on the 4th August 1993.
There was a hearing which lasted some three days on the 8th and 30th January and the 30th April 1993 before the Ashford Tribunal. On the 12th May 1993 the unanimous decision of the Tribunal was communicated to the parties, namely that the application failed and was dismissed.
A Notice of Appeal was lodged on the 23rd June 1993 and the matter has come up on a preliminary point today as to whether the appeal should go forward. We have had the benefit of submissions by Mr Fairweather, on behalf of the employee, with a skilful outline argument in support of the application.
We have to say there is one ground in the appeal which we think is a ground for there being an appeal going forward and that is a fairly narrow one. That is this: there seems to have been a number of grounds on which Mr Hart was dismissed and there is a finding in the Tribunal's detailed reasons at paragraph 4 and 13 that one of the reasons which might have contributed to Mr Hart's dismissal was in making a delivery to a customer to the wrong address. There was evidence before the Tribunal that Mr Hart was not at all at fault in making that delivery and if and so far as that was considered by the employers as a ground for dismissing him, that was wrong. At paragraph 13 we have this in the findings:
"Although the matter of the wrong delivery which was partly responsible for the second warning was misconduct it did not in our view, constitute the principal reason for the dismissal, which was the applicant's performance of his duties."
If and so far as the Tribunal considered it one of the reasons, we have been referred to authority, which suggests that there may, we do not say more than that, there may have been an error below.
On that ground we think the appeal should go forward. There are other grounds in a rather rambling Notice of Appeal which has been lodged. We do not think there is anything in those other grounds, in particular, the suggestion that there was perversity in the findings is not one that can be sustained, there having been a three day hearing, there having been a full reflection in the reasons of the matters which were before the Tribunal, and in our view would not result in any perverse findings of fact.
In the circumstances we do not think it would be appropriate for there to be a appeal on other than the one point which we have identified and we will allow the appeal to go forward only on that one point. We will allow it to go forward on the basis that there is to be an amended Notice of Appeal restricted to that one point to be lodged within 14 days, subject to Mr Fairweather now seeking further time.