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 >> Armstrong v Automotive Components Dunstable Ltd [1996] UKEAT 759_96_3110 (31 October 1996) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1996/759_96_3110.html Cite as: [1996] UKEAT 759_96_3110 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE H J BYRT QC
MR A E R MANNERS
MR W MORRIS
| APPELLANT | |
| RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
| For the Appellant | MR A FREER (Union Representative) |
JUDGE BYRT QC: This is a preliminary hearing in relation to an appeal from a decision of the Industrial Tribunal sitting at Bedford on 22 May 1996. At that hearing the employer conceded unfair dismissal and accordingly the Industrial Tribunal made a unanimous finding to that effect. They awarded the Applicant a total sum of £666. The basis upon which they did so is set out in their Extended Reasons.
The Applicant, now the Appellant, appeals against the compensation that was awarded. The basis upon which he does so is set out in his Notice of Appeal. First of all it is said that the Industrial Tribunal did not take into account the full loss of earnings he suffered. Whilst he earned as much money in the alternative employment he obtained, he had to work an extra thirty hours in order to accumulate the same pay. It is none too clear from the Tribunal's reasons whether they were saying that that does not amount to a financial loss and therefore for that reason they disallowed it, or whether they just misunderstood the documentation put before them.
The second issue is whether they should have awarded the Applicant an amount for the statutory minimum period of notice. It is quite plain that their calculations are silent as to whether they did so or not. The probability is that they did not.
Mr Freer who has argued this matter in front of us is handicapped to some extent because he was not the representative who appeared for the Applicant before the initial Tribunal and he is now unable to say whether these points were actually taken by that representative on that occasion. That representative unfortunately is now seriously ill and it is difficult to get clear instructions about this matter.
We feel that the Applicant should be allowed to proceed with this appeal to a full hearing and that to assist the Tribunal who hears the appeal, the Chairman's Notes should be obtained relating to the issue of compensation. We direct that those Chairman's Notes be produced, it will then enable that Tribunal to know whether the point was taken below, and if it was not, whether they are happy to allow this matter to go ahead in any event. The notes will give them a clear idea what material was before the Tribunal. That is our direction. We allow this matter to go forward to a full hearing.
