[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Harman v Methodist Homes For The Aged [1998] UKEAT 1278_98_3011 (30 November 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1998/1278_98_3011.html Cite as: [1998] UKEAT 1278_98_3011

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR R CLARKE (of Counsel) Free Representation Unit Fourth Floor Peer House 8-14 Verulam Street London WC1X 8LZ


 


JUDGE J. ALTMAN: This is an appeal from the decision of the Employment Tribunal sitting at London (South) on 26 August 1998. It comes before us by way of preliminary hearing to determine if there is a reasonably arguable point of law so as to give the Employment Appeal Tribunal jurisdiction to entertain and determine the appeal at a full hearing.

The application before the industrial Tribunal arose out of the Applicant's entitlement, as the Tribunal found, to have meals provided free of charge by his employers as part of the benefits of his employment, and out of the decision of the Respondents to terminate that entitlement, unilaterally, on the 1 April 1998.

Thereupon, the Applicant treated that termination as a termination of his employment by the Respondents, and the Tribunal found that he was entitled to do so, and the Applicant left. Because of the way the matter had been handled by the Respondents, the Industrial Tribunal found that the dismissal was unfair and from that finding there is no appeal. However, in paragraph 32 of their decision the Tribunal found that the Applicant contributed to his dismissal and that "any award would be reduced by 50%, because of his failure to respond to suggestions of discussions, some somewhat belated, which might have led to a solution".

There had not been any submissions to the Tribunal about this, although the element of contribution is very often a factor to be considered by a Tribunal. We have read the Tribunal's decision and the main ground of complaint by the Applicant is that such approaches as could have been made reasonably by the Applicant would all have occurred after the employment came to an end. It seems to us that there is an arguable point that the conclusion of the Tribunal to which I have just referred is not supported by the findings of fact in the decision of the Tribunal and there is a further arguable point that such decision is contrary to those findings of fact. We have come to the conclusion that those points are points of law which justify this matter proceeding to a full hearing.

Accordingly, this matter will go before a full Appeal Tribunal. If the Applicant wishes to add to the skeleton argument, that must be done by amendment and a skeleton argument from the Respondents is to be submitted; both documents to be with the Tribunal not less than 7 days before the date listed for the hearing of this matter. We consider that it will take half a day. It should be listed in category C.

The correspondence passing between the parties should be furnished to the Appeal Tribunal in the form of a bundle, but it does not seem to us that any notes of evidence are required.

Leave to amend the notice of appeal in accordance with the application received on 9 November 1998.