BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Butler v Kilroy Pipeline Services Ltd [1994] UKEAT 412_94_2709 (27 September 1994) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1994/412_94_2709.html Cite as: [1994] UKEAT 412_94_2709 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal
HIS HONOUR JUDGE J HICKS QC
MR J C RAMSAY
MISS A MADDOCKS OBE
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant NO APPEARANCE BY OR
REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
JUDGE HICKS: Mr Butler appeals against one aspect of the decision of the Industrial Tribunal, which found in his favour that he was unfairly dismissed but in the assessment of compensation referred to the fact that he had been receiving sickness benefit from the date of cessation of his employment and, to put it briefly, did not allow loss of earnings during the period for which he was in receipt of sickness benefit.
We have decided to order that this Appeal proceed to a full hearing. When making such an order it is not the practice of this Tribunal to give reasons, and we do not propose to give reasons in any general terms, but it may be helpful to the Appellant simply to refer to one short matter for the clarification of his own understanding of the legislation. It is one of his complaints that he has read in the press of applications before industrial tribunals in which sums of money have been awarded for injury to feelings, and in particular he has written to us with press cuttings showing that a lady applicant was awarded a sum of money under that head. We just wish to make it plain - because Mr Butler asks whether there is one law for men and one for women - we wish to make it plain that that is not the situation, but it is time that there is one law for cases under the Sex Discrimination Act, such as that in the press cutting; and that different principles apply to the assessment of compensation under the legislation in relation to unfair dismissal, which is the legislation under which he applied and under which his compensation fell to be assessed.
With that comment and without any expression of view about the merits of the appeal itself, other than that we consider it fit to go for a full hearing, we order that it shall do so.
