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 >> Wordsworth Holdings Plc v Bacon [1996] UKEAT 1345_95_2406 (24 June 1996) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1996/1345_95_2406.html Cite as: [1996] UKEAT 1345_95_2406 |
||
[New search] [Help]
At the Tribunal
HIS HONOUR JUDGE J HULL Q.C.
MRS R CHAPMAN
MR R JACKSON
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING - EX PARTE
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellants NO APPEARANCE BY OR
ON BEHALF OF THE
APPELLANTS
JUDGE HULL Q.C.: We give leave for this appeal to proceed. It appears to us that some of the matters raised in the Notice of Appeal may not have been raised before the Industrial Tribunal and therefore the appellants are likely to be met or may be met in this appeal tribunal by the well-founded argument that they are not entitled to take points which were not properly laid before the Industrial Tribunal, or in others words to argue points of law for the first time, or to put in new evidence, at any rate without leave; the rules for which are clearly strict. Our leave is subject to all those points, and we ask that our decision, what I am saying now, should be conveyed to both parties so that they can see what we have said. But subject to those matters we give leave to raise the points which are raised in the Notice of Appeal.
It appears to us in particular that the arithmetic set out in the reasons contains certain mistakes; among other things, it appears to us that the statement of overtime is counting the £10.48, which is allowed per week, twice and this gives rise arithmetically to a sum of the order of £312 too much. Certainly there is no allowance for tax and National Insurance rightly deductible on either basis. More fundamentally, there is no calculation, as against what should have been paid, of what indeed was paid and lawfully paid. In particular National Insurance and tax are deducted there too. So those matters appear to us to arise on the face of the decision and to justify the view that we ought not to dispose summarily of this matter, but to allow it to go to a full appeal.
We also ask the Chairman please to furnish his notes of evidence; because it appears to us that we know less than we should like to do at the moment about what in fact was before the Industrial Tribunal.
