[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Pinnacle AIC Ltd v. Honeyman & Ors [2001] UKEAT 411_01_1909 (19 September 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/411_01_1909.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 411_1_1909, [2001] UKEAT 411_01_1909

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR T SADIQ (of Counsel) Instructed By: Messrs Lockett Loveday McMahon Solicitors Arkwright House Parsonage Gardens Manchester M3 2LF


 


MR RECORDER LANGSTAFF QC:

1. This is a preliminary hearing in a case which came before the Employment Tribunal sitting at Thornaby. It gave its reasons on 17 January 2001 in which it held that there was a Transfer of an Undertaking from Cape, the Second Respondent to Pinnacle, the Appellant.
2. We propose to give permission for the grounds of appeal to be argued at a hearing at which the Respondents will be represented. Essentially, we note that in paragraph 14 the Employment Tribunal state that they found the decision in Willer v ADI very persuasive on the basis that the facts were similar. The report available to the Employment Tribunal was of that case once it had passed through the Employment Appeal Tribunal. Subsequently, it has been considered by the Court of Appeal and at 2001 EWCA 971, the Court of Appeal reversed the decision which this Tribunal had come to.
3. We consider that it will be necessary to review the decision reached by this Tribunal in the light of the guidance given by the Willer case, amongst others, and secondly, we note that it is arguable that there was here neither an economic entity or, if there was, it is arguable that nothing was transferred that might be said to constitute the entity, apart from the transfer of a contract. We do not, however, purport to determine this question which we think is for a full decision of this Tribunal.
4. It should be Category B. It will take at least one day so one day should be allowed for the hearing. We would ask that skeleton arguments should be provided no less than 14 days prior to the hearing together with photocopies (we would ask in three sets please) of any authority to be relied upon. We would also enjoin the parties to be selective as to the authorities which are cited. This is an area in which many cases are repetitive, one of another, and extended and repeated citation is less helpful than it is time-wasting.
5. The basis for this Tribunal's giving leave is contained in the reasons we have given. It will be sufficient if the skeleton argument addresses those reasons. Any formal amendment of the Notice of Appeal may await the decision of the full inter-partes hearing.