United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR C SHELDON (Of Counsel) Instructed by Messrs Wiseman Marshall Solicitors 7 High Street Rayleigh Essex SS6 7EU


 


JUDGE PUGSLEY

1. This is a case in which I consent to the parties who sit with only two members of the Tribunal. One of our colleagues I am afraid has been precluded from being with us. We have been persuaded by Mr Sheldon but there is an aspect of this case that merits consideration of a full Tribunal hearing. It is arguable the Chairman by directing that the issue of 'funding' be taken separately from other aspect of the Appellant's complaint deprived the Tribunal of the opportunity of hearing all the evidence relevant to the claim of unfair dismissal and to deprive the Appellant the opportunity to present her claims for unfair dismissal and victimisation.
2. The second ground was the Tribunal erred in law by placing improper pressure on the Appellant to withdraw her claim of victimisation.
3. The third ground was that the Tribunal erred in law in its consideration of unfair dismissal. It focussed solely on the 'substantive' aspects of unfair dismissal. Its conclusion was 'perverse'; the mere fact that there was insufficient funding to renew the Applicant's contract for a full year did not preclude the Respondent from continuing to employ the Appellant at all.
4. We think that these are arguable grounds and are arguable. We assess this as Category B. Time estimate half a day. We give leave for the amended grounds of appeal to be filed within 14 days. We direct that the Chairman be invited to comment on the letter of 27 June 2000, Page 38 of the EAT bundle and that the Chairman provides Notes of evidence.