[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> In Shop Centres Plc v. Weston [2001] UKEAT 468_01_1809 (18 September 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/468_01_1809.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 468_1_1809, [2001] UKEAT 468_01_1809

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	NO APPEARANCE OR REPRESENTATION BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT


 


MR RECORDER LANGSTAFF QC:

1. This is a preliminary hearing in an appeal from a decision of the Employment Tribunal sitting at Cardiff. In Extended Reasons promulgated on 16 February 2001 the Tribunal determined that the Respondent had been unfairly dismissed and awarded him just a little short of £20,000 compensation.
2. Today no-one has appeared to pursue the appeal. We have, however, had letters faxed from Peninsula Business Services Limited, who represent the Appellant. They asked for an adjournment because their file of papers was stolen on Friday 14 September. They also indicate that their diaries had not listed today's date as a date for the hearing. They say that they believed the matter was listed for 19 or 21 September. Surprising as it may be that no enquiry was made as to that and, even more surprising, that we should have had a fax this morning referring to a hearing listed on 21 September but purportedly dated 20 September which is, in fact, two days away from today, referring to an appeal tomorrow, we nonetheless have accepted this as an application for an adjournment.
3. We have declined to permit the adjournment. This is because we have, prior to today, looked at the papers before us and have concluded that there may be an arguable basis for appealing the decision. The arguable basis is that which is contained in the Notice of Appeal at paragraph 6(b) and at paragraph 6(d). Both of those paragraphs submit that findings of fact in paragraph 13 of the Employment Tribunal's decision were either findings for which there was no evidence, or they were directly contradictory to documentary evidence which was available.
4. We do not have the documentary evidence before us to determine for ourselves what force there is in these submissions. In order to do justice to the Notice of Appeal we would also have to see, or be told reliably, what evidence was given orally before the Tribunal, in particular in respect of the findings it made at paragraph 13(d). We would have been in no position to do that had this preliminary hearing continued and we think it appropriate that those matters should be explored at a hearing at which the Respondents are represented.
5. We should, however, emphasise that we have taken this decision upon the basis of the material set out in the Notice of Appeal. We have taken it that the matters complained of in both paragraphs 6(b) and 6(d) are matters which at least arguably reflect the true position. If it should emerge on further consideration by the Appellant that those grounds are not justified either by the documentary evidence or by the oral evidence given, we would expect the Appellant to notify the Respondent immediately that the grounds were not being pursued at all or at least to the extent that they could not properly be pursued.
6. Having said that, we should then say that we see no arguable force in the grounds set out at paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) and direct that the appeal will proceed only upon the basis set out in paragraphs 6(b) and 6(d).
7. We consider that the appeal should take no more than half a day to hear. It is Category C. We direct that the Appellant prepares a bundle of documents which it considers supports the Notice of Appeal in the grounds specified, agrees that with the Respondent and provides that to this Tribunal no less than two weeks prior to the hearing. Skeleton arguments together with copies of any cases to be relied upon must also be supplied no less than two weeks prior to the date to be fixed for the hearing.