United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR G CLAYTON (Solicitor) Messrs Graham Clayton Solicitors Hamilton House Mabledon Place London WC1H 9BD


 


MR RECORDER LANGSTAFF:

1. In this matter which comes before us by way of preliminary hearing in an appeal against a decision of the Employment Tribunal sitting at Norwich whose reasons were promulgated on 11 October 2001, we propose to give leave on one of the grounds of appeal so that the matter can be argued fully.
2. The notice of appeal raises two grounds. One argues that on the basis of the authority of Whiffen, which post dated the decision of this Tribunal, the Tribunal were in error in its approach to the question of whether or not a policy which it identified was objectively justified. We consider that is arguable. We consider that allied to it is the question of whether the application of the policy was proportional to the mischief which the policy addressed.
3. The second ground of appeal is described simply as perversity. We think that the points which are highlighted in the notice of appeal under this head are points which may have some utility in supporting an argument upon the ground upon which we have already indicated we give permission to appeal further. Accordingly, nothing that follows is intended to shut out the Appellant from relying upon the factual matters and inconsistencies which are pointed to if they are of assistance in respect of that first argument. However, we do not think that perversity as such can be a freestanding ground of appeal in this case.
4. If one considered the decision as being impeccable in so far as the justification of the policy was concerned, then we would see nothing that could reasonably be said to be perverse about the way in which the Tribunal came to that conclusion, or the fact that it had come to that conclusion even though there might be some inconsistencies which could be pointed to. As has often been said a Tribunal decision is not supposed to be the elaborate product of formalistic craftsmanship and so we do not regard it as a separate arguable ground of appeal. We hope we do Mr Clayton's argument no disservice by suggesting that perhaps he did not press this ground with anything like the enthusiasm that he pressed the first.
5. We think that the matter should take no more than 2 hours to resolve. It is Category B for listing purposes. We would ask that skeleton arguments addressing the issue as we have defined it be at this Tribunal no less than 14 days prior to the hearing together with copies of any authorities upon which it is proposed to rely.