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 >> Henly Homes Ltd v. Simmons [2002] UKEAT 1472_00_1302 (13 February 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2002/1472_00_1302.html Cite as: [2002] UKEAT 1472_00_1302, [2002] UKEAT 1472__1302 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE BURTON
MR D J HODGKINS CB
MR R THOMSON
| APPELLANT | |
| RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Revised
| For the Appellant | MR MARTYN WEST Peninsula Business Services Ltd Riverside New Bailey Street Manchester M3 5PB |
| For the Respondent | NO APPEARANCE OR REPRESENTATION BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT |
MR JUSTICE BURTON:
This appeal by the Appellant Henly Homes against the decision of the Employment Tribunal at Truro on 20 July 2000 is conceded by the Respondent. The basis upon which it is conceded is that the grounds of appeal by the Appellant are bound to succeed. Those grounds are that the Tribunal, contrary to the guidance in British Homes Stores v Burchell [1980] ICR 303 substituted its own view for that of the Appellant employer rather than considering whether the Employer's decision was within the band of reasonable responses. This arose because three days after the decision of the Truro Employment Tribunal the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment in the case of Post Office v Foley; HSBC v Madden [2000] IRLR 827 expressly disapproving certain observations made by Mr Justice Morison, then President of the EAT in Hadden v Van Den Berg Foods Ltd [1999] IRLR 672. The alternative ground is that the Tribunal at the very least gave insufficient reasons as per Meek v Birmingham City Council [1987] IRLR 250. We agree that the concession was proper, and have directed that this decision should be quashed and that the matter be remitted for a rehearing before a differently constituted Tribunal. At that Tribunal the whole matter as to whether there was unfair dismissal will be reopened ab initio, and in addition, if they arise, the issues of contributory conduct and/or no loss will also fall to be considered.
