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 >> London Borough Of Camden v Akers [1998] UKEAT 305_98_2603 (26 March 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1998/305_98_2603.html Cite as: [1998] UKEAT 305_98_2603 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK
MR P DAWSON OBE
MRS J M MATTHIAS
| APPELLANT | |
| RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING - EX PARTE
| For the Appellants | MISS ADRIENNE MORGAN (of Counsel) Instructed by: The Borough Solicitor London Borough of Camden Town Hall Judd Street London WC1H 9LP |
JUDGE PETER CLARK: This is an appeal by the employer, the London Borough of Camden ["Camden"] against a decision of the London (North) Industrial Tribunal (Chairman: Mr G Flint) following a three day hearing in October 1997, that the employee, Ms Akers, was unfairly dismissed. Extended reasons for that decision are dated 15th December 1997.
The respondent employee was dismissed on 28th June 1996, having been declared permanently unfit for duty in her substantive post of caretaker from and since 11th November 1994.
The basis of the Industrial Tribunal's findings of unfair dismissal appears to be that the employer did not take sufficient steps to find her alternative employment.
Although that is broadly a question of fact for the Industrial Tribunal we are satisfied that this appeal raises arguable points of law which ought to go forward to a full hearing. It is said that the tribunal made material findings of fact unsupported by or contrary to the detailed evidence which was before it; that the tribunal imposed too high a burden on the employer to seek alternative employment for her, and that on the detailed evidence adduced by Camden as to the inordinate lengths to which they went in an attempt to re-deploy Ms Akers the decision was perverse, in the sense that it was an impermissible option.
We further take the view, on Camden's application, that this is unusually a case in which the whole of the Chairman's Notes of Evidence are necessary for the purpose of resolving the points made in the appeal. Accordingly we shall give a direction for full Chairman's Notes of Evidence to be obtained.
The case will be listed for hearing for four hours; Category C; skeleton arguments to be exchanged not less than 14 days before the date fixed for the full appeal hearing. Copies of those skeleton arguments to be lodged at the same time with this tribunal.
