United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellants	MR J BOWERS (One of Her Majesty's Counsel) Messrs Halliwell Landau Solicitors St James Court Brown Street Manchester M2 2JF


 


MR JUSTICE CHARLES: The Appellant in this case is Ladbroke Racing Ltd, the Respondent is Mr Sackett. The matter comes before us on a preliminary hearing.

We are satisfied that there are reasonably arguable points of law, particularly those raised in 6.1 of the Notice of Appeal, particularly when read with paragraph 15 of the Extended Reasons and paragraph 6.6 of the Notice of Appeal.

Mr Bowers, who has appeared for the Appellant and has provided us with a helpful outline argument, has told us that he may not pursue points raised in paragraphs 6.5, 6.7, and 6.11 of the Notice of Appeal and possibly 6.8 of the Notice of Appeal. He has undertaken to us that, if he does not wish to pursue those points, he will notify the Respondents to the Appeal in good time that that is the case.

We have not considered in great detail the points other than those raised in paragraphs 6.1 and 6.6 of the Notice of Appeal and therefore should not be taken in the future as having reached any informed view as to whether or not they raised points that are reasonably arguable.

We are satisfied that on the points raised in paragraphs 6.1 and 6.6 there are reasonably arguable points of law which, if the Appellants establish them, would lead to a successful appeal.

So far as directions are concerned, we will direct that the Appellants do write to the Respondent

(1) inviting him to indicate whether he wishes to argue the point raised in 6.1 of the Notice of Appeal, having regard to what is said in paragraph 15 of the Extended Reasons.

(2) inviting the Respondent to agree the issues of fact asserted by the Appellant which underline paragraph 6.6, 6.8 and 6.9 of the Notice of Appeal.

In default of agreement as to those facts, or default of agreement as to how the appeal should be disposed of within 28 days from today, we will make the direction set out in paragraph 11.1 of Mr Bowers' outline argument, namely that the Chairman be invited to produce his notes of evidence on the points relating to paragraph 6.6, 6.8 and 6.9 of the Notice of Appeal, that is the evidence or lack of evidence to the effect that:

a The Respondent attended a disciplinary meeting with Mr Papantoniou; in fact the uncontested evidence before the Tribunal was that he attended a disciplinary hearing with Mr Donno;

b At the interview with Mr Papantoniou on 2 May 1997, Mr Papantoniou acknowledged that he had been told by the Respondent not to play the slot machines in the Appellant's shop;

c It was not merely "tenuous evidence" or a "rumour" as found by the Industrial Tribunal in paragraph 12 of the Decision that Mr Papantoniou admitted that he had been told by the Respondent not to play on the slot machines;

d Mr Papantoniou admitted that he had been told by the Respondent not to play on the slot machines.

One final point. We were asked to make a direction that this case be heard with another case. We do not feel we have sufficient information as to that and any such application should be made to the Registrar.

We will give this case Category C.