United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1994] UKEAT 93_94_1602

Appeal No. EAT/93/94

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 16 February 1994

HIS HONOUR JUDGE LEVY QC

MR P M SMITH

MRS M E SUNDERLAND JP

---

DEBENHAMS PLC          APPELLANTS

MISS M WHITE          RESPONDENT

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellants MR K DAVIS

(CONSULTANT)

Keith Davis (Employee

Relations Ltd)

119 Church Road

Hove

EAST SUSSEX BN3 2AF

For the Respondent MR T NEWTON

(CONSULTANT)

Northern Employment Law Consultants

Unit 23

Brougham Enterprise Centre

Hartlepool TS24 8EY


 


JUDGE LEVY QC: There was a hearing before an Industrial Tribunal sitting at Middlesborough following an application by Miss White claiming that she had been summarily dismissed. The hearing was on 25 October 1993 and it was resolved in her favour. The decision was communicated to the parties and the Reserved Reasons were sent to the parties on 18 November 1993. The Tribunal held unanimously that the Applicant had been unfairly dismissed: the hearing was adjourned to enable the parties to agree compensation. If they failed to do so within 21 days of the issue of the Reasons the case was to be relisted.

In January 1994, the parties were instructed by the Regional Office of Industrial Tribunals to notify unavailable dates in February and March within fourteen days so that the remedy hearing could be continued. On 17 February 1994 a notice of appeal was launched by the employers, Debenhams PLC, seeking to appeal against the findings of the Tribunal and the Full Reasons. Meanwhile, Debenhams sought to have a stay of the remedy hearing pending the hearing of the appeal.

Mr Newton has argued for the employee that it would be right to have the remedy hearing first for two reasons. First of all, if there is a remedy hearing first any monies found due could be, following a County Court hearing, secured pending the appeal if Debenhams wished to go on with the appeal. Alternatively, if there was an appeal which was unsuccessful the employee would be kept from her money longer than necessary.

We have taken careful consideration of Mr Newton's submissions but we feel that justice in this case would be better done if the appeal against the decision promulgated on 18 November 1993 is first heard. There should be a stay on the remedy hearing until after that is done. We think justice will be done to the parties if we suggest, and we ask that as both representatives before us have asked, that the appeal should be expedited. We hope that it will be heard in the lists as soon as possible.

In the circumstances to that extent we allow this appeal.