United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellants	MR P GREEN (of Counsel) Messrs Eaton Ryan & Taylor Solicitors Lombard House 145 Great Charles Street Birmingham B3 3LP


 


MR JUSTICE CHARLES: Two appeals come before us today by way of preliminary hearing pursuant to our Practice Direction.

1. The parties to both appeals are a company called Llewellyn Ryland Ltd, who are the Appellant before us and were the Respondent before the Employment Tribunal, and a Mr Jones and a Mr Kemp.
2. The appeals are against decisions of an Employment Tribunal sitting at Liverpool. The Extended Reasons for the two decisions were sent to the parties on respectively 25 March and 21 September 1999. The first decision is as to Liability and the second is as to Remedy. I shall refer to them as "the Liability Decision" and "the Remedy Decision".
3. In the Liability Decision the Employment Tribunal found that Mr Jones was unfairly dismissed and that the Respondent was in breach of contract, so far as he was concerned and, in respect of Mr Kemp the Employment Tribunal found that Mr Kemp's complaint of breach of contract was well founded, the Respondent being in breach of contract.
4. At the Remedy Hearing and in the Remedy Decision the Employment Tribunal quantified and made awards.
5. We have had the benefit of clearly drafted Notices of Appeal in respect of both the Liability Decision and the Remedy Decision.
6. When we came into court this morning our view was that the appeal in respect of the Liability Decision did not raise reasonably arguable points of law. The main thrust of that appeal is as to the adequacy of the reasons given by the Employment Tribunal. Having been taken through those reasons by Counsel for the Appellant, we are now satisfied that reasonably arguable points of law are raised, having regard to the issue whether or not the Extended Reasons satisfy what is commonly referred to as the Meek test.
7. It is always the case that extended reasons given by an Employment Tribunal should be read generously, or that one should read between the lines. It is also the case that the extended reasons should be read against the facts that were common ground and the background known to the parties (including documents referred to in the extended reasons).
8. When these Extended Reasons are read against facts commonly known and compared, for example, with the claim as made by Mr Jones in his IT1 and the fact recorded in the Extended Reasons that Mr Kemp had earlier asked for an early retirement package. In our judgment, points that are reasonably arguable arise and the appeal against the Liability Decision should therefore go to a full hearing on the grounds set out in the Notice of Appeal relating to it.
9. Turning to the Liability Decision, Counsel for the Appellant did not have the task of persuading us, because we had concluded when we came in that reasonably arguable points were raised on this appeal. We remain of that view.
10. A draft Amended Notice of Appeal in respect of the Remedy Decision has been handed in today making an amendment as to a point of detail. We will give leave to make that amendment, it is to paragraph 6(7). We direct that that Amended Notice of Appeal be lodged within seven days. Naturally, as that leave is given in the absence of the Respondents and as is recorded in this Tribunal's Practice Direction, they can, if they so wish, apply to set it aside. But as we have indicated the amendment is simply as to detail and in our judgment it does not alter the main thrust of the appeal against the Remedy Decision.
11. We will therefore direct that both appeals go forward together to a full hearing. We will give them Category B and a time estimate of a day.