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 >> Young v Croydon Electrical Ltd (t/a C E L Wholesale) [1996] UKEAT 109_95_1402 (14 February 1996) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1996/109_95_1402.html Cite as: [1996] UKEAT 109_95_1402 |
||
[New search] [Help]
At the Tribunal
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (P)
MRS M T PROSSER
MISS S M WILSON
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised
APPEARANCES
MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (PRESIDENT): This is the Preliminary Hearing of an appeal by Mrs Young, who succeeded before the Industrial Tribunal held at Cardiff on 13 December 1994 in her claim for sex discrimination and unfair selection for redundancy on the ground of her sex.
An Order for compensation was made against the Respondents, Croydon Electrical. Mrs Young appealed against that decision on two points. First, on the amount of compensation and, secondly, on the refusal of the Tribunal to award her any compensation for injury to her feelings for sex discrimination. She served a Notice of Appeal on 1 February. The case was set down for a Preliminary Hearing to determine whether an arguable point of law was raised by her appeal. She has not attended today. She informed the Tribunal in a slip returned on 31 January that she did not intend to be present or to be represented. She submitted a Skeleton Argument explaining the reasons why she considered that she had been awarded less compensation than she was legally entitled to, and why she submitted that there was an error of law on the part of the Tribunal, in the reasons for refusing to award her anything for injury to feelings.
The attitude of the Respondents is passive. They did not turn up to the hearing before the Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal proceeded in their absence. They took evidence from Mrs Young, and made their decision on the basis of her evidence and arguments alone.
Croydon Electrical are not entitled to be here today at a Preliminary Hearing, but they will be entitled to be present at the full hearing which we consider should take place. Our view is that Mrs Young does have an arguable case on both of the points taken. We have not found it easy to understand the reasons why the Tribunal calculated compensation to her in the manner they did. We find that there is an arguable legal error in the reasoning of the Tribunal in paragraph 14 of the decision, in which they stated the grounds on which they would not order any compensation for injury to feelings.
The order today is that the appeal will proceed to a full hearing. We hope that at the full hearing Mrs Young will be able to attend or be represented to help the Tribunal to decide the case. We hope too that someone will be available to represent Croydon Electrical, if they oppose the appeal. We also consider that, in order to decide this appeal, it will be necessary to order production of the Chairman's Notes of Evidence. We need to see what evidence was given by Mrs Young on crucial aspects relating to the commencement of her statutory maternity leave. For those reasons we make these orders. The appeal proceeds to a full hearing. The Chairman's Notes of Evidence are to be called for. We direct that the parties exchange and lodge with this Tribunal, at least 21 days before the listed date of hearing, Skeleton Arguments.
