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 >> Hoeffler v Kwik Save Stores Ltd [1997] UKEAT 803_97_1711 (17 November 1997) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1997/803_97_1711.html Cite as: [1997] UKEAT 803_97_1711 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK
MR P DAWSON OBE
MR P A L PARKER CBE
| APPELLANT | |
| RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING - EX PARTE
| For the Appellant | MISS S MOORE (of Counsel) Nottingham Law Centre 119 Radford Road Hyson Green Nottingham NG7 5DU |
JUDGE PETER CLARK: This is an appeal against the Nottingham Industrial Tribunal's decision to review its substantive decision made on 4th February 1997 and contained in a written decision with full reasons dated 3rd March 1997
In the substantive decision the Industrial Tribunal found that the appellant had made out her claims both of unfair dismissal and unlawful sex discrimination.
At the review hearing held on 24th March the Industrial Tribunal revoked the finding of unlawful sex discrimination on the basis of an agreement apparently reached between the parties' representatives in correspondence on a date prior to the first hearing.
That revocation order is attacked in this appeal on the grounds that no agreement was reached which was binding on the appellant; that if it was it was waived by the respondent which took no point on it during the substantive hearing over two days; that the ground for review did not fall within Regulation 11(1)(e) of the 1993 Rules of Procedure, in particular no procedural mishap has been shown, nor was the original decision undermined by subsequent events, and finally that having revoked the decision as to sex discrimination the Industrial Tribunal failed to order a rehearing as required by Rule 11(7).
In our view these grounds more particularly developed by Miss Moore in her skeleton argument, raise arguable points of law which ought to be considered at a full inter parties appealing hearing. We so direct. We also give leave to the appellant to amend the Notice of Appeal in the form of the draft submitted by Miss Moore, such amended pleading to be lodged within seven days of today. The case will be listed for a half-day hearing. Skeleton arguments are to be exchanged and lodged 14 days before the date fixed for the full appeal hearing.
