United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1996] UKEAT 1218_95_2703

Appeal No. EAT/1218/95

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 27th March 1996

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE HOLLAND

MR J A SCOULLER

MR S M SPRINGER

---

MR A J BHARADIA          APPELLANT

POST OFFICE COUNTERS LTD          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant MS MONAGHAN

(of Counsel)

E.L.A.A.S.


 


MR JUSTICE HOLLAND: We have before us this morning an preliminary hearing in an appeal brought by Mr A J Bharadia against a decision of the Industrial Tribunal sitting at London (North) on 10th August 1995, the decision itself being that his dismissal was not unfair and therefore his complaint of unfair dismissal be itself dismissed. The extended reasons for their decision were sent to the parties on 5th December 1995.

The purpose of this morning's preliminary hearing has been to decide whether there is sufficient apparent merit in this appeal to justify a full hearing, that is, a hearing at which the original and prospective respondents are present, Post Office Counters Ltd.

This morning Mr Bharadia has had the considerable advantage of having representation by Ms Monaghan, the result of which has been that she has persuaded us that there should be that further full hearing.

The essential points that are presently arising relate to Section 57 Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. What we are concerned with is this; first and foremost, did the Industrial Tribunal correctly find what was the reason for the dismissal for the purposes of Section 57(1). Yet further, proceeding on from that, in the light of what was the reason for the dismissal, did they correctly apply the tests set out in Section 57(3).

It is manifest that those points do not presently appear from the Notice of Appeal. Yet further, they do not appear from the present file prepared for this tribunal, which lacks some plainly essential documentation. We propose simply at the moment to direct that further hearing, confident that Ms Monaghan's assistance to this tribunal, will continue to this extent that she will give Mr Bharadia some advice as to the future presentation and prosecution of his appeal, so that by the time the full hearing takes place, that tribunal will have an amended Notice of Appeal and will further have all the assistance that it requires in terms of documentation, and hopefully, a chronology.

It goes without saying, that we are grateful to Ms Monaghan. We have no doubt that Mr Bharadia is equally grateful to her.