United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1995] UKEAT 1239_94_2103

Appeal No. EAT/1239/94

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 21 March 1995

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE HOLLAND

MS R CHAPMAN

MRS P TURNER OBE

---

FACCENDA CHICKEN LTD          APPELLANTS

(1) MR R EVANS

(2) MR M RAMSDALE          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellants MR D FLOYD

(Personnel Manager)


 


MR JUSTICE HOLLAND: On 12 October 1994 the Industrial Tribunal sitting at Bedford had before it a complaint made by two Applicants, Mr R Evans and Mr M Ramsdale alleging unfair dismissal by their employers, Faccenda Chicken Ltd. In the event, that Tribunal ruled that both Applicants had been dismissed and that their dismissals were unfair.

The response of their employers was to initiate an appeal to this Tribunal by way of a notice of appeal of 23 November 1994. That appeal has come before us today for a preliminary hearing, that is so that we can decide whether this matter can be resolved forthwith or whether it should be relisted on an inter partes basis so that the arguments for both sides may be heard.

Having had opportunity to read the extended form reasons for the decision as sent to the parties on 25 October 1994, we are entirely satisfied that this matter should go forward for a full hearing inter partes. It would not be appropriate for us, as this stage, to anticipate the conclusion of the Tribunal that hears this matter but we are entirely satisfied that there is plain issue for that Tribunal to consider as a question of law arising out of the reasons as set forth.

Thus it is that we direct that there be that further hearing on an inter partes basis. What we also wish to do is to give certain further directions for the better conduct of that hearing. Thus, we direct that the Chairman of the Industrial Tribunal be requested to transcribe her notes of the evidence and furnish this Tribunal with a copy thereof for use at the appeal. Second, we direct the parties to prepare a bundle of the relevant documents, which bundle should be in chronological order, paged and, for preference, agreed with the Respondents to the appeal.

Finally, we draw the Appellant's attention to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. As we intimated to Mr Floyd, who has appeared on behalf of his employers, he being the personnel manager, the jurisdiction of this Tribunal is limited to questions of law. That being the case, his employers might like to reflect as to whether the appeal might be more effectively presented were they to instruct a solicitor or barrister specialising in this field to undertake the conduct of the appeal. Mr Floyd must not take that as any reflection upon the courteous way in which he has argued the matter before us, rather it reflects the need for this Tribunal to be assisted as to matters of law in order that it can arrive at a decision in accordance with its jurisdiction. Plainly, Mr Floyd is in a position to argue the appeal. He will have rights of audience if he chooses to exercise them but he may think that the interests of the employers might be better presented with the aid of some expertise in this particular branch of the law.