United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1996] UKEAT 1336_95_0105

Appeal No. EAT/1336/95

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 1st May 1996

Before

HIS HONOUR JUDGE B HARGROVE Q.C.

PROFESSOR P D WICKENS OBE

MR N D WILLIS

---

DAISY CHAIN NURSERY          APPELLANTS

MRS M WALSH          RESPONDENT

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING - EX PARTE

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellants MR M GRIFFITHS

(E.L.A.A.S.)


 


JUDGE HARGROVE Q.C.: The Industrial Tribunal held that the respondent was unfairly dismissed.

I need not go into the details. There was a transfer of undertakings. The position appears to be, and upon the findings the appellants were deceived by the second respondents. The basis being that the appellants had no knowledge of the dismissal because of deception of the second respondents, and that the dismissal did not relate to the transfer of undertakings.

The point is taken this morning that the calculation of the compensatory award should have taken into account Section 74. If one reads the whole of the reasons, it is quite obvious that all material matters were looked at, and although the wording of Section 74 was not used, we can see no arguable point of law in this case. Accordingly it is dismissed.