United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1994] UKEAT 776_94_0310

Appeal No. EAT/776/94

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 3 October 1994

Before

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE PILL

MR J C RAMSAY

MR J D DALY

---

JOHN PHILLIPS PARKINSON          APPELLANT

MARCH CONSULTING LTD           RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant IN PERSON


 


MR JUSTICE PILL: Mr J.P. Parkinson appeals against a Decision of the Industrial Tribunal held at Manchester on 10 December 1993 and 1 February 1994, which gave Reasons at the request of the parties at a later date, and they appear at pages 4 to 9 of the bundle.

A Preliminary Hearing has been directed pursuant to the practice direction so that the Tribunal has an opportunity to determine at a preliminary stage whether the Appeal raises a sufficiently arguable case to give the Appeal Tribunal jurisdiction to entertain it.

Mr Parkinson has appeared in person and we have heard him and considered his written Applications, his written reasons which appear in two documents, one dated 12 August 1994 and the second, dated 29 August. We have unanimously come to the conclusion that the case should proceed to a full hearing.

We say, by way of direction, that the Chairman's note should be made available to the Tribunal, as should the exhibits lodged as listed on page 18 of the bundle. It would be inappropriate of us to give any reasoned expression of views at this stage. That will be a matter for the full hearing. However, in addition to giving the direction that we have, we would suggest that Mr Parkinson does set out in one document, in skeleton form, the central points which he makes, several points having arisen and indeed a fresh one which arose only in the course of the hearing.

We give leave, if leave is necessary, that he should be allowed to make the points in the document of 29 August, but no doubt it would be of assistance to the Tribunal if they had, in summary form at any rate, the legal propositions which Mr Parkinson now seeks to advance. We simply say this by way of reference too, and of course without prejudice as to how the Tribunal at the full hearing might view the point, that we have been surprised by the absence in the Industrial Tribunal's Decision of any setting out of the case which we accept from him that Mr Parkinson did put forward. It may be that is a point which at the full hearing the Tribunal might like to consider. He puts his case, at any rate, in part upon the proposition that the Tribunal have not understood the case which was put forward on his behalf.