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 >> Wade v. AAH Pharmaceuticals Ltd [2001] UKEAT 0272_01_0309 (3 September 2001)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/0272_01_0309.html
Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 272_1_309, [2001] UKEAT 0272_01_0309

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


BAILII case number: [2001] UKEAT 0272_01_0309
Appeal No. EAT/0272/01

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS
             At the Tribunal
             On 3 September 2001

Before

MR RECORDER LANGSTAFF QC

MR K EDMONDON JP

MRS R A VICKERS



MR P H WADE APPELLANT

AAH PHARMACEUTICALS LTD RESPONDENT


Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

© Copyright 2001


    APPEARANCES

     

    For the Appellant MR DAMIAN BROWN
    (Of Counsel)
    Instructed by:
    Union of Shop Distributive and Allied Workers
    188 Wilmslow Road
    Fallowfield
    Manchester
    M14 6LJ
       


     

    MR RECORDER LANGSTAFF QC

  1. In this case, which is an Appeal from the Employment Tribunal sitting at Leeds whose reasons were promulgated on 10 January 2001, it is argued by Mr Brown (who appeared for the Appellant) that the Tribunal recognised in the last two sentences in paragraph 14 of that decision that the Employer had fettered any discretion it might have had to consider whether or not it was fair and reasonable to dismiss this particular employee. Indeed there may be some indication that they thought that continued employment was reasonable because the employer appeared to be prepared to offer it.
  2. We think that this raises the interesting and perhaps difficult question whether an employer, who has a settled policy operated without exception in the best interests of the business, nonetheless should at least consider on each and every occasion the policy comes to be applied to an employee whether it should be applied without regard to all the other circumstances.
  3. The Employment Tribunal, in looking at the circumstances of the case focussed, it seems, upon the Respondent's application of its own policy. We think that it is arguable that the Employment Tribunal in doing so may not have applied the statutory test in Section 98 as they were required to do.
  4. We give no indication as to prospects of success that we have been persuaded by the skeleton argument of Mr Brown that it should be argued.
  5. The Appeal should be listed in Category B. It should take, we think, no more than two hours, being a very short and discrete point, but one upon which some law may bear. We would ask the skeletons be exchanged and filed no less than seven days prior to the hearing together with copies of any authorities, which are to be relied upon.


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/0272_01_0309.html