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!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Simon v. David Alterman & Co [1999] UKEAT 376_99_1606 (16 June 1999)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/376_99_1606.html
Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 376_99_1606

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


BAILII case number: [1999] UKEAT 376_99_1606
Appeal No. EAT/376/99

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS
             At the Tribunal
             On 16 June 1999

Before

HIS HONOUR JUDGE WILKIE QC

MR S M SPRINGER MBE

MR R N STRAKER



MRS M SIMON APPELLANT

DAVID ALTERMAN & CO RESPONDENT


Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING – EX PARTE

© Copyright 1999


    APPEARANCES

     

    For the Appellant MR BENJAMIN BURGHER
    (of Counsel)
    Messrs David Wineman
    Solicitors
    Craven House
    121 Kingsway
    London
    WC2B 6NX
       


     

    JUDGE WILKIE QC:

  1. Mr Burgher has persuaded us that on the issue of the aggravated damages there is a seriously arguable case that this Employment Tribunal, having used the very words in Alexander v Home Office [1988] IRLR 190, have erred in law in failing to categorise that which they have described in those terms as giving rise to aggravated damages and, therefore, we allow this appeal to go forward to a full hearing on that issue as well as the compensatory award.
  2. As far as the appeal against the finding that there was a dismissal by reason of redundancy. We are perfectly satisfied that the decision of the Employment Tribunal was based on evidence which was before it and is clearly enunciated, correctly applying the correct legal principles applicable to the facts they found and, therefore, we rule that there is no seriously arguable case on that issue. We therefore dismiss the appeal in so far as it refers to that issue of liability or reason for dismissal.
  3. It seems to us that on none of the bases upon which this appeal will go ahead is there any need for any Chairman's Notes and therefore we will not order notes.
  4. As far as the time for the hearing. ½ a day would be sufficient. I do not think there is any need to amend the Notice of Appeal except to strike out paragraphs 1, 2 and 3.


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/376_99_1606.html