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 >> Debenhams Plc v White [1994] UKEAT 93_94_1602 (16 February 1994) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1994/93_94_1602.html Cite as: [1994] UKEAT 93_94_1602 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal
HIS HONOUR JUDGE LEVY QC
MR P M SMITH
MRS M E SUNDERLAND JP
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellants MR K DAVIS
(CONSULTANT)
Keith Davis (Employee
Relations Ltd)
119 Church Road
Hove
EAST SUSSEX BN3 2AF
For the Respondent MR T NEWTON
(CONSULTANT)
Northern Employment Law Consultants
Unit 23
Brougham Enterprise Centre
Hartlepool TS24 8EY
JUDGE LEVY QC: There was a hearing before an Industrial Tribunal sitting at Middlesborough following an application by Miss White claiming that she had been summarily dismissed. The hearing was on 25 October 1993 and it was resolved in her favour. The decision was communicated to the parties and the Reserved Reasons were sent to the parties on 18 November 1993. The Tribunal held unanimously that the Applicant had been unfairly dismissed: the hearing was adjourned to enable the parties to agree compensation. If they failed to do so within 21 days of the issue of the Reasons the case was to be relisted.
In January 1994, the parties were instructed by the Regional Office of Industrial Tribunals to notify unavailable dates in February and March within fourteen days so that the remedy hearing could be continued. On 17 February 1994 a notice of appeal was launched by the employers, Debenhams PLC, seeking to appeal against the findings of the Tribunal and the Full Reasons. Meanwhile, Debenhams sought to have a stay of the remedy hearing pending the hearing of the appeal.
Mr Newton has argued for the employee that it would be right to have the remedy hearing first for two reasons. First of all, if there is a remedy hearing first any monies found due could be, following a County Court hearing, secured pending the appeal if Debenhams wished to go on with the appeal. Alternatively, if there was an appeal which was unsuccessful the employee would be kept from her money longer than necessary.
We have taken careful consideration of Mr Newton's submissions but we feel that justice in this case would be better done if the appeal against the decision promulgated on 18 November 1993 is first heard. There should be a stay on the remedy hearing until after that is done. We think justice will be done to the parties if we suggest, and we ask that as both representatives before us have asked, that the appeal should be expedited. We hope that it will be heard in the lists as soon as possible.
In the circumstances to that extent we allow this appeal.
