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 >> Mainland Car Deliveries Ltd v Phillips [1998] UKEAT 414_98_0106 (1 June 1998)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1998/414_98_0106.html
Cite as: [1998] UKEAT 414_98_106, [1998] UKEAT 414_98_0106
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MORISON (P)
MR T C THOMAS CBE
MR E HAMMOND OBE
MAINLAND CAR DELIVERIES LTD APPELLANT
MR J P C PHILLIPS RESPONDENT
| APPELLANT | |
| RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Revised
| For the Appellant | MISS S MOOR (Of Counsel) Mr J Bromley Messrs Davies Wallis Foyster Solicitors 5 Castle Street Liverpool L2 4XE |
| For the Respondent | MR G PRICE Solicitor Messrs Rowberry Morris Solicitors Morroway House Station Road Gloucester GL1 1DH |
MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): The purpose of this hearing is to determine whether there is an arguable point of law in an appeal which Mainland Car Deliveries Ltd wish to bring against a decision of an Industrial Tribunal held at Bristol over two days in late 1997 and early 1998. The decision of the Tribunal was reduced to writing and sent to the parties on 2 February 1998. By their decision the Tribunal concluded, by a majority, that the Applicant, Mr Phillips, had been unfairly dismissed by the Appellants and that he had caused or contributed to his own dismissal to the extent of 40%.
The Appellant's contention is that the majority in the Industrial Tribunal have either substituted their own view of the seriousness of the incident giving rise to the Applicant's dismissal or have arrived at a conclusion which was perverse, having regard to the facts they have found in the decision.
It seems to us that both those contentions are arguable, having regard to the facts set out in the Tribunal's decision. The Applicant, at one stage, would have wished to have contended not only that the decision of the majority was right, but also that the reduction in the award of 40% was wrong, and a cross-appeal was in contemplation in relation to the 40%. We have been told this morning that, very sensibly, the 40% reduction point is not any longer to be pursued on the appeal.
Accordingly, it is an extremely short point at issue to be argued at a full hearing. I estimate that the time for the disposal of the appeal, including time for giving judgment, is no longer than 1½ hours. I shall list it as a Category C case which means that it can be heard by any one of the Judges here, which will mean that it will come on earlier than if I gave it a different category, and there are no other directions that need to be given, save that I shall record in the Order that Notes of Evidence are not required for the purposes of the hearing of this appeal.
I would like to thank both Miss Moor for the Appellant and Mr Price for the Respondent employee, for coming here.