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 >> Songra v Marano [1998] UKEAT 1076_97_1601 (16 January 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1998/1076_97_1601.html Cite as: [1998] UKEAT 1076_97_1601 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MORISON (P)
DR D GRIEVES CBE
MR W MORRIS
| APPELLANT | |
| RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
| For the Appellant | MR O'BRIEN (ELAAS) |
MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): The purpose of this hearing was to determine whether there is an arguable point of law in an appeal by the employer against a decision of an Industrial Tribunal held at London (North) on 1 July 1997.
The only issue on the appeal relates to the quantification of compensation that was ordered to be paid to the Applicant, who was held to have been unfairly dismissed. The Appellant accepts the unfair dismissal adjudication but questions the approach of the Tribunal to the compensation.
In relation to compensation, there is one point and one point only, namely, whether the Industrial Tribunal were entitled to conclude that the losses which they estimated the Applicant would suffer after the termination of her alternative employment which she had obtained following her dismissal, was a loss which was attributable to the unfair dismissal, or whether the fact that she had obtained alternative employment, which had then come to an end, broke the chain of causation.
We consider that to be arguable. It is also arguable, that the Industrial Tribunal may have failed to have given sufficient reasons for including that part of the award, namely, £2,040.00 in their adjudication. Those are the matters which should go forward for a full hearing. We give no indication one way or the other as to its probable outcome.
