Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Littlewoods Home Shopping Group Ltd v Oliver [1997] UKEAT 685_97_0910 (9 October 1997)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1997/685_97_0910.html
Cite as: [1997] UKEAT 685_97_0910, [1997] UKEAT 685_97_910
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE D PUGSLEY
MRS J M MATTHIAS
MR S M SPRINGER MBE
LITTLEWOODS HOME SHOPPING GROUP LTD APPELLANT
MISS L OLIVER RESPONDENT
| APPELLANT | |
| RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Preliminary Hearing
| For the Appellants | MR R BRADLEY (of Counsel) Legal Department Littlewoods Organisation Plc 100 Old Hall Street Liverpool L70 1AB |
JUDGE D PUGSLEY: This is a case in which we have had the benefit of a quite excellent Skeleton Argument. If I may say so, the Skeleton Argument really encapsulates the points. Mr Bradley, with Northern realism, only seeks to argue grounds 1 and 2 of the appeal.
So leave will be given on grounds 1 and 2 of the appeal. They are, in paragraph 6:
"(i) The Industrial Tribunal erred in law in finding that it was outside the range of reasonable responses for the Appellant to dismiss the Respondent when Index Limited (as associated company to the Respondent) had concluded on reasonable grounds that the Respondent was guilty of deliberate dishonesty in the course of her employment with Index Limited.
(ii) The Industrial Tribunal erred in law in finding that it was impermissible for the Respondent to rely on a finding that the Appellant was guilty of deliberate dishonesty in the course of her employment made by an associated company."
If we may say so, the guts of the appeal are set out in paragraph 4(1) in the Skeleton Argument and the citation there, although not on all fours, of P v Nottingham County Council [1992] ICR 706. We think this is clearly an arguable point. That is all we say. There is no need for the Chairman's notes of evidence.