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 >> Haulbridge Ltd v Rayner & Ors [1997] UKEAT 477_97_2406 (24 June 1997) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1997/477_97_2406.html Cite as: [1997] UKEAT 477_97_2406 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT)
MRS E HART
MR K M YOUNG CBE
| APPELLANT | |
| RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING - EX PARTE
| For the Appellants | MR M DUGGAN (of Counsel) Messrs Astons Solicitors 57 Love Lane Pinner Middlesex HA5 3EY |
MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): This is an appeal against a decision of an Industrial Tribunal Chairman sitting alone, who held that there had been a transfer of an undertaking so as to make Haulbridge Ltd liable to a large number of applicants.
The Notice of Appeal contained a large number of grounds. It is essentially contended that there is conflict between paragraph 10 of the Industrial Tribunal Chairman's decision and the conclusion which the learned Chairman arrived at, that there had been a transfer and that there was a dismissal in connection with the transfer.
Mr Duggan has persuaded us that there are four arguable grounds of appeal raised in his Notice of Appeal. The first relates to the paragraph 10 point. The second is consequential upon it, which is that having found, as it did in paragraph 10, the Chairman ought to have found that the employees were not dismissed for a reason connected with the transfer. The third ground is a finding by the Chairman that there had effectively been some form of collusion between the receiver and the companies which dismissed the respondents and Haulbridge Ltd. He says that there was no foundation for that, and we have asked for Notes of Evidence which will help to show us whether there is any merit in that point or not. And finally, he maintains that there was not in any event a transfer of a business.
It seems to us without expressing any view as to the likely outcome of the appeal, that at any rate for the purposes of a preliminary hearing, those points are just arguable. And we give leave on that basis.
That means that of the grounds specified in the Notice of Appeal, the following paragraphs will remain and the rest will be deleted. I start with paragraph 6.6. 6.6.1, 6.6.2, 6.6.4 without the last sentence, and 6.6.7 will remain. All other paragraphs under the heading "Grounds of Appeal" will be dismissed.
