At the Tribunal
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE PILL
MRS M L BOYLE
MR J M GAILBRAITH CB
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellants MR H M HELY
(OF COUNSEL)
Rowe Radcliffe
163 Brighton Road
Coulsdon
Surrey, CR5 2YY
MR JUSTICE PILL: This is an Appeal against the decision of the Industrial Tribunal held in London South on the 22nd April 1994 where it was held unanimously that the Applicant Mr. Jason Jackson was unfairly dismissed. The Tribunal awarded compensation of £12,127.50p. The employers Harold Supplies PLC appeal against that decision.
This is a Preliminary Hearing. We have heard Mr. Hely on behalf of the Employers. He has submitted very detailed grounds of Appeal and he has supplied a skeleton argument. All we have to decide today, subject to any directions which may be given, is whether the matter proceeds to a full hearing. Mr. Jackson who appeared in person before the Industrial Tribunal is not present and under the practice is not expected to be present at this stage.
We have come to the conclusion that the matter should proceed to a full hearing. We have heard Mr. Hely at some length, though only on a comparatively small proportion of the grounds he has put forward. However, directing that the case should go forward, should not be taken as an indication that we find merit in the arguments addressed to us, indeed some of the arguments addressed to us, we are singularly unimpressed with. Others appear to us to be what has been described as the "toothcomb" to the Tribunal's decision and that is an approach which frequently finds no favour with this Tribunal. Further, we must guard ourselves against being, if I may use the colloquial "worn down" at a Preliminary Hearing simply because of the number of points made that we feel constrained to allow the matter to go forward.
We are unimpressed with one point upon which Mr Hely has placed considerable reliance, namely his complaint that the Tribunal should not consider dismissal procedure unless the Complainant himself requests it that be dealt with. This was a case where there was evidence before the Tribunal about the dismissal procedure and we indicate that for ourselves, the final decision will not be ours, we do not find merit in that point. However, we are persuaded that whatever the merit of these points, Mr Hely cannot put them forward without having the Notes of Evidence. We do not have the Notes of Evidence nor would we be expected to have them at this stage. We propose to direct they should be made available and the matter can proceed to a full Hearing with the Tribunal then hearing it, which would be a differently constituted Tribunal having the benefit of those notes.
We have also noted points made that findings are perverse, it is alleged, and findings of fact are either unsupported by evidence or Mr Hely says are contrary to the evidence. We say this only by way of suggestion, that if the very numerous points made can be reduced to a briefer form and if submissions of law can be made succinctly in a document to be submitted to the Tribunal, we would expect the Tribunal to be helped by that.