United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR J FENTON Representative on behalf of the Appellant


 


THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): The purpose of this hearing is to determine whether there is an arguable point of law in an appeal which Mr During, the Appellant, wishes to make against his former employers, Waltham Forest Energy Services Limited.

The decision of the Tribunal against which this appeal has been brought followed a three day hearing at the Stratford Industrial Tribunal and the Chairman's decision which runs to some 5 typescript pages was sent to the parties on 10 August 1998. The unanimous decision of the Tribunal was that the Applicant was not unfairly dismissed from his employment and accordingly, his application was dismissed. The issue before the Industrial Tribunal was this, what was the normal retirement age for this employee. If his retirement age was 60 years, then the Tribunal did not by virtue of Section 109(1) of the Act have jurisdiction and the Application should be dismissed. The Tribunal's conclusion was that Mr During was not unfairly dismissed but actually retired from his employment at 60 years of age.

The issue before the Tribunal was therefore to a large extent an examination of the contractual terms between the parties. It seems to us that in broad terms, it is unsatisfactory that the question of the retirement date should be in the slightest bit open to doubt. It is a matter of considerable importance to employees to know when it is that they are going to be retiring so that they can make pension provision for themselves outside their employment, if they so wish, and take pension decisions in relation to the employee's pension scheme in other cases.

Accordingly, we are prepared to look at this case further to see whether the approach of the Industrial Tribunal to the determination of the retirement age was correct in law. We do not by saying this wish to give any indication one way or the other as to how the appeal will be decided in due course. It is sufficient merely to indicate that it is a case where we think further consideration should be given to it.

For the purposes of the full hearing, we shall require the documentation which was provided to the Industrial Tribunal and to which extensive reference has been made in their decision. The reason why we need that documentation is that without it, it is very difficult to understand precisely the force of the points which are being made in that decision. It is not a case where notes of evidence are required. We have got a PHD form from the Respondents and they are not seeking notes of evidence, nor are they being sought on the Appellant's behalf.

Accordingly, this case will go for a full hearing. It will be marked Category B. I estimate the time for the hearing of the appeal will be half a day and I require the parties to agree a bundle of documents which is to be sent to the Employment Appeal Tribunal in good time before our hearing is due to take place. If there is any problem about documentation, then an application will have to be made to the President who will give further directions on that issue. Therefore the matter goes ahead.