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 >> Hodder v Day & Sons (Brentwood) Ltd [1994] UKEAT 546_93_0703 (7 March 1994) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1994/546_93_0703.html Cite as: [1994] UKEAT 546_93_703, [1994] UKEAT 546_93_0703 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal
HIS HONOUR JUDGE B HARGROVE OBE QC
MR T S BATHO
MR D O GLADWIN CBE
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant MR J SUDDABY
(OF COUNSEL)
Wandsworth Law Centre
248 Lavender Hill
London SW11 1LJ
JUDGE HARGROVE OBE QC: The basis upon which this case is urged is that the Tribunal, in reaching a conclusion that there was a redundancy situation, has misdirected itself. I need not go into the facts at any detail but the Tribunal did find that there was a situation under the contract whereby the proposed Appellant could be ordered to serve at any reasonable place. The Appellant did not wish to do any work which did not involve 8 wheel vehicle driving. That work was not open to him, the only depot which was in existence to deal with 8 wheelers namely Purley and Crawley.
What the Tribunal found was that that made him redundant. We can see a technical argument of law upon that. In those circumstances, bearing in mind the very narrow grounds upon which we are allowed to stop a case at this point, we are obliged to let it go forward. We emphasise the technical nature of this attack upon the decision of the Tribunal and in those circumstances and bearing in mind all the matters we have raised today about the likely outcome, what we are going to do is to note on the file that all courts which deal with this hereafter should monitor carefully the question of costs.
