United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	THE APPELLANT (In Person)
For the Respondent	MR C TAYLOR (Of Counsel) Instructed by Messrs Sherwin Oliver Solicitors The Old Manor House Wickham Road Foreham PO16 7AR


 


JUDGE REID QC

1. This is an appeal by the Appellant, Mr Kear from a decision of an Employment Tribunal siting at Southampton on 22 February 2000 by which it held that Mr Kear's claim for breach of contract should be dismissed but held that a counter-claim made by the employer Neural Technologies Ltd for £103 should be allowed and made an order for payment for that amount.
2. The decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal is that this case was to be remitted for a re-hearing by a different Employment Tribunal. It is a decision which we have reached reluctantly because the amount at stake is in financial terms comparatively modest though clearly so far as Mr Kear is concerned the issue of the damage to his reputation caused his dismissal is one of considerable importance.
3. Unfortunately we have taken the view that on the paucity of findings of fact in the Extended Reasons provided by the Tribunal it is impossible for us to do justice to the contentions of either side on the appeal before us. The substantive issue relating to Mr Kear's dismissal related to questions of whether or not he had been in breach of the duty of confidentiality to his employers and whether that alleged breach allowed the employers to dismiss him summarily.
4. Regrettably, the Extended Reasons do not contain any of the necessary finding of fact for us to be able to determine the precise nature of the duty of confidentiality imposed upon Mr Kear; the possible remedies, if he were in breach of that duty; whether the document which it is alleged that he promulgated was a confidential document; whether it had been disseminated to others at the time of his dismissal; and if so whether all of those others had received it under conditions which bound them to confidence. In parenthesis I should say that it was suggested before us but it does not emerge from the decision that was evidence before the Tribunal that the supposedly confidential document had been circulated to some 35 customers at Neural Technologies Ltd before Mr Kear allegedly published it to a rival firm. It is entirely unclear whether any and if so which of those 35 had signed confidentiality agreements and in the event that some or all of them had signed confidentiality agreements what the terms of those confidentiality agreements were.
5. We have had produced to us by way of what would have been additional evidence one copy letter which was apparently faxed to somebody called Nigel that in itself raises question as to whether or not there is a publication in circumstances which retained confidentiality or not.
6. In the circumstances we have taken the view that the only course, is, as I say, to remit the matter for re-hearing before a fresh Tribunal. The parties will be able to address the issues that have now become clear perhaps with a greater degree of accuracy on the re-hearing. It is to be hoped, if the parties are unable to compromise their differences and the matter does proceed to a completion of a re-hearing, that on the next occasion the Extended Reasons given by Tribunal (if they are required) will contain full and detailed findings of fact so that there is no repetition of the unfortunate position in which the Employment Appeal Tribunal finds it self today.
7. The subsidiary point related to £103 is a point which it might have been possible to dispose of today without any further findings of fact but both parties are agreed that if the main point has to be submitted for a re-hearing then it is appropriate that the subsidiary point is also remitted and we therefore remit the entirety of the matter before the Employment Appeal Tribunal, for a re-hearing before a differently constituted Tribunal.