United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1994] UKEAT 581_93_2109

Appeal No. EAT/581/93

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 21 September 1994

Before

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE FRENCH

MR P DAWSON OBE

MISS A MACKIE OBE

---

MRS R RYAN          APPELLANT

ALL BLACK CABS LIMITED          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant MR M MCPARLAND

(Of Counsel)

Messrs Davies Wallis Foyster

5 Castle Street

Liverpool

L2

For the Respondents MR Y RAHMAN

(Of Counsel)

Messrs Tickle Hall Cross

2 Derby Street

Prescot

Merseyside

L34 3LJ


 


MR JUSTICE FRENCH: The conclusion we come to is that this appeal must be allowed, in the light of our further conclusion that this matter should be remitted to a differently constituted Industrial Tribunal for them to determine all questions of compensation and the quantum of compensation. It may be that the less we say about the facts of the case the better.

The facts found by the Industrial Tribunal at paragraph 14 of their Decision set out the factual bones as one would expect them to do of this matter. We adopt their statement of facts and see no need to repeat them in this judgment.

There is a notable omission from paragraph 14. Nowhere is it stated in that paragraph, or indeed elsewhere in the Reasons that the Appellant was given an opportunity to deal with the latest allegations of misconduct against her, which were the precipitating cause of the dismissal, or offer any explanation which she might have advanced by way of mitigation of any misconduct which she might have been prepared to concede.

We are unpersuaded by the Respondents' argument that the Tribunal must, by inference, have considered whether or not the Appellant was given an opportunity to put forward her explanation and/or mitigation by reason of what they say in the concluding four lines of the first paragraph of the paragraph numbered 15 of their Reasons.

We are further unpersuaded that by inference they found that such an opportunity was indeed given. We have not found, nor have we been shown by Counsel, any evidential basis upon which the Industrial Tribunal could have concluded that such an opportunity was indeed given. To afford such an opportunity is the duty of a dismissing employer in all but the rarest cases, and we conclude that this was not such a case.

It is on that ground alone that we allow this appeal. We emphasise, in case it should be necessary, that in considering the question of quantum the Industrial Tribunal, differently constituted, must take it as datum that the dismissal was unfair for the reason we give. In the result then this appeal will be allowed and the matter will be remitted to a differently constituted Industrial Tribunal for them to consider the question of quantum.