United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1996] UKEAT 1156_95_1303

Appeal No. EAT/1156/95

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 13th March 1996

THE HONOUR MR JUSTICE HOLLAND

MR R H PHIPPS

MS D WARWICK

---

MR PHILIP BOXALL          APPELLANT

SOUTHSIDE REHABILITATION ASSOCIATION LIMITED          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant TIM KERR

(of Counsel)

Christian Fisher

Solicitors

42 Museum Street

Bloomsbury

London WC1A 1LY


 


MR JUSTICE HOLLAND: This matter comes before us by way of a preliminary hearing, the appeal being from a decision of an Industrial Tribunal held at London (South) on and between 3rd and 14th July 1995, which decision appears from extended reasons sent to the parties on 7th September 1995.

Earlier in this preliminary hearing, we gave leave to Mr Kerr on behalf of the appellant, to substitute an amended Notice of Appeal.

In ground 2 of that Notice, the matter is put this way:

"The exception to the doctrine in Polkey [1988] ICR 142 which the tribunal erroneously invoked at paragraphs 55 and 57 of its decision has no application in a case where the employee is entitled to insist that the employer must honour a contractual obligation to follow a particular disciplinary procedure: Stoke v. Lancashire County Council [1992] IRLR 75, CA, per Dillon LJ ( with whom McCowan and Nolan LJJ agreed) at page 77, paragraphs 20-24; Cabaj v. Westminster Council [1994] IRLR 532, EAT, per Mummery J (P) at page 553-4, paragraphs 13-18."

That ground in its term reflects the paragraphs in the extended reasons 54 to 58 inclusive. We are entirely satisfied that the point there raised is a point that should be referred for a full hearing before the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

Mr Kerr, in our judgment, is right to draw attention to possible difficulties in reconciling Cabaj with the findings of this Industrial Tribunal. For our part, we are in turn interested in the relationship between what he calls the Stoker line of authorities and Polkey, and more importantly, Section 57 (3) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978.

Thus, to that extent, he has leave to go forward to a full hearing so that that matter may be developed as a point of law before this tribunal.