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 £5, 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 >> Gordon v Videotron Communications Ltd [1997] UKEAT 65_96_2210 (22 October 1997) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1997/65_96_2210.html Cite as: [1997] UKEAT 65_96_2210 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE H J BYRT QC
MR A E R MANNERS
MR S M SPRINGER MBE
| APPELLANT | |
| RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
| For the Appellant | IN PERSON |
JUDGE JOHN BYRT QC: This is a preliminary hearing in relation to an appeal against a decision of the Industrial Tribunal. Its decision was promulgated on 13 December 1995. Having found the employers guilty of unfair dismissal they ordered the Respondents to re-engage the Applicant, Mr Gordon. The employers failed to comply by the specific date mentioned for re-engagement and therefore, the Industrial Tribunal went ahead and awarded compensation accordingly.
There are two aspects which we have to deal with. One is that raised by an amendment to the Notice of Appeal, and we have given leave for that amendment, where it is suggested that the Industrial Tribunal got wrong the position leading up to the crucial date in June 1995. It stated that there were no sums to be awarded to Mr Gordon by reason of the fact that he was too ill to work during that period of time, but it is suggested by the amendment that he was unable to work by reason of the depression that he suffered following his dismissal, and that is a matter which clearly should be considered afresh at a full hearing, should this matter go forward.
The second point raised is that a misunderstanding has arisen about the position after 19 September 1995 because the Industrial Tribunal said that Mr Gordon had then gone back to a college to receive full-time training, whereas in actual fact he only attended three hours a week. At a preliminary hearing, on an earlier occasion, a direction was made that the Chairman's Notes should be produced in order to ascertain whose mistake this misunderstanding was. Unhappily, their file has been lost and so this Tribunal is none the wiser about this particular issue.
We think that the only proper decision to make in the circumstances, is that this matter go forward to a full hearing to allow this Tribunal to come to a decision on both these matters.
