United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1994] UKEAT 644_93_1002

Appeal No. EAT/644/93

I N T E R N A L

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 10 February 1994

Before

HIS HONOUR JUDGE LEVY

MRS E HART

MISS C HOLROYD

---

MR P K MILLS          APPELLANT

P & P MICRO DISTRIBUTORS LTD          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant MR B MARK

(OF COUNSEL)

Messrs Slater Links

Solicitors

22 Blackburn Street

Radcliffe

Manchester M26 9NQ

For the Respondents MR C WYNTER

(OF COUNSEL)

Messrs Clifford Chance

Solicitors

200 Aldersgate Street

London EC1A 4JJ


 


JUDGE LEVY QC: When this appeal was called on, Mr Winter, who appears for the Respondent, P & P Micro Distributors Ltd, made a preliminary application for the appeal to be dismissed on the grounds that the full reasons for the decisions below were not before us. We will deal very briefly with what the appeal is about.

Mr Mills, the Appellant, was an employee of the Respondent until allegedly dismissed on the ground of redundancy on 28 February 1992. There followed a three day hearing before the Industrial Tribunal in Manchester, on 19 January, 16 February and 23 April 1993 about that. At the end of the three day hearing the Tribunal declared that the Appellant was unfairly dismissed; the Appellant's claim for reinstatement/re-engagement was dismissed; the question of compensation was adjourned to a later date and the parties were asked to deal with certain disclosures to see if they could be dealt without their further hearing. The Tribunal gave its Summary Reasons for the dismissal and paragraph 2 of those Summary Reasons says that:

"The reason for his dismissal was redundancy in that the requirements of the respondents business for employees to carry out work of the particular kind for which the applicant was employed had diminished."

There was then a further hearing in Manchester, on the matter of compensation, which only took one day on 1 June 1993, when again Summary Reasons were given for the decision that no award of compensation should be made.

It is known to everybody who has anything to do with Industrial Tribunals that when decisions of Industrial Tribunals are sent to the parties they are accompanied by a standard notice headed "Notes". The Notes state at paragraph 3:

"The reasons for the decision state whether they are in full or summary form. If the reasons for your decision are given in summary form, you may request that the tribunal give full written reasons. If you are going to appeal against the decision, you will need full reasons (see paragraph 19 below). The request for full reasons must be made in writing within 21 days of the date on which the decision was sent to you. This date can be found stamped on the decision document. Your request should be sent to the Assistant Secretary at the Regional Office of Industrial Tribunals."

Paragraph 19 of the same Notes reads:

"The notice of appeal should be accompanied by a copy of the Industrial Tribunal decision and a copy of the full written reasons for it. If you have received a decision giving only summary reasons you should request full reasons (see paragraph 3 of this Note). The notice of appeal must be served on the Employment Appeal Tribunal within 42 days of the date on which the full written reasons for the decision which is the subject of the appeal, were sent to you. This date is shown on the last page of the document containing the full written reasons."

The paragraph then goes on to deal with applications for review.

The Notes put in simple language for the parties the relevant rules which govern hearings before an Employment Appeal Tribunal. The rules are called "Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1980"; they are contained in S.I. 1980/2035.

It is common ground that no application for full written reasons was made at any stage in this case but this was only noticed by the parties at a very late stage. In those circumstances Mr Wynter, appearing for the Respondent, asked that the appeal be dismissed, no extension of time even now having been sought from the Tribunal below to get the full written reasons. In connection with the application our attention has been drawn to the decision of the Court of Appeal in William Hill Organisation -v- Gavas [1990] IRLR 457.

Mr Mark, for the Appellant, has brought to our attention the fact that there is a discretion of this Appeal Tribunal to let the appeal go ahead without the full written reasons if on the face of the documents, for instance, it can be seen that the Tribunal below erred. He said that we will find such an error if we look at paragraph 8 of the second decision of the Industrial Tribunal.

Mr Wynter in reply showed that that paragraph cannot be looked at in isolation and he has drawn to our attention a skeleton argument of Mr Mark which shows that what is complained of throughout that argument is omissions from the judgments below. These are omissions which we can well understand may be found in Summary Reasons but which may well have been plugged if Full Reasons had been sought. The onus is on the Appellant to seek and obtain these reasons timeously in accordance with the Notes and the Rules of the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

It seems to us that there would be a great injustice to the Respondent if, after all this length of time with nothing having been done which should have been done, the appeal was adjourned in some way for Chairman's notes and the full reasons now to be obtained. We take account of the fact that there was a full three day hearing in the first instance below, at which everything of substance must have been gone into, but that does not affect our decision. Having regard to the decision in the William Hill case, we think that it would be wrong to let this appeal go forward on the facts of this case. In the circumstances we think that Mr Wynter's preliminary point is a good one and accordingly we will dismiss the appeal.