United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellants	MR D BASU (of Counsel) Head of Law & Public Services Legal Services PO Box No.21030 London N1 2WW


 


MR JUSTICE CHARLES: The parties to this appeal are the London Borough of Islington who are the Appellant and the employers and a Mary Collins, who was the Applicant below.

The matter comes before us on an ex-parte preliminary hearing to consider whether or not the Notice of Appeal raises points of law that are reasonably arguable.

The finding of the Tribunal was that the Applicant had been unfairly dismissed and that she should be reinstated. We have had the benefit of oral argument and a skeleton argument from Mr Basu.

Turning to the unfair dismissal, he acknowledges that there are some difficulties in his path because in the Tribunal's findings they do recite the right test but he says, either that a fair reading of the Extended Reasons shows that they did not actually apply that test, or that if they did, the decision reached by the Tribunal was perverse because no Tribunal, properly directing itself, could have reached that conclusion.

Additionally, as to the unfair dismissal case, he points to an inconsistency between paragraphs 5 and 17 of the Extended Reasons relating to the conduct of a Mr Wright. From that he seeks to found an argument that the reasons of the Tribunal are not properly set out.

In our judgment what we have to consider is whether or not there is a reasonably arguable point here, we do not have to reach a conclusion as to whether it would succeed. We have concluded that there are reasonably arguable points as to this aspect of the appeal. It is probably better at this stage that we say no more about that. They are set out in the Notice of Appeal and in our judgment they should continue.

The second head of appeal relates to the decision to reinstate. Here it is asserted that the Tribunal applied the wrong test or did not apply it properly. One element of that argument is that the case that the Tribunal refer to and rely on is a re-engagement case, rather than a reinstatement case. Again, at this stage we only have to consider whether reasonably arguable points are raised. In our judgment they have been raised as to this aspect of the appeal as well.

We note that in respect of this head of appeal it is not expressly stated in the Notice of Appeal as a separate ground, that the Tribunal failed adequately to explain their reasons. We will give leave to amend the Notice of Appeal to add that ground. In doing so we make it plain that the Respondents may, at an appropriate time before or at the appeal hearing itself, seek to have that direction set aside.

We will deal with directions separately, the Respondent being represented as to that.