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 >> McLeod-Brown v Concrete Grinding Ltd [1997] UKEAT 728_97_2710 (27 October 1997) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1997/728_97_2710.html Cite as: [1997] UKEAT 728_97_2710 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT)
MR L D COWAN
MRS P TURNER OBE
| APPELLANT | |
| RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING - EX PARTE
| For the Appellant | MR THOMAS LINDEN (of Counsel) Messrs Eversheds Solicitors Cloth Hall Court Infirmary Street Leeds LS1 2JB |
MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): The purpose of this hearing is to determine whether there are arguable points of law arising out of a decision which was given by an Industrial Tribunal following a hearing at Leeds on 14th March 1997. By their decision they unanimously concluded that the applicant, Mr Derrick McLeod-Brown had been unfairly dismissed by his former employers, Concrete Grinding Ltd, but that he was not entitled to any remedy. It is against the latter part of that decision that the appellant/applicant wishes to appeal.
Mr Linden has identified to our satisfaction two points of law which are arguable.
The first is the question whether the Industrial Tribunal have correctly concluded that the applicant was not entitled to a basic award. The second is whether the Industrial Tribunal have properly directed their minds to the question whether had the procedure that was contracted for been followed, the applicant might have remained in employment for a short period prior to his dismissal for which he has not received compensation. There was a third point, which is that the tribunal have somehow acted inconsistently in concluding that it would not have been futile for the employers to have followed the procedure, yet he was not entitled to compensation because had they followed the procedure he would have been dismissed fairly. It seems to us that there is no inconsistency between those two statements, Lord Bridge in Polkey plainly contemplated such a case, and we are not prepared to say that that point, on the facts as found by the tribunal, is reasonably arguable in this case.
The case is to be listed as a Category C. The duration of the hearing to be two hours. Notes of Evidence are not required.
