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 >> William West & Sons (Ilkeston) Ltd v Fairgrieve & Ors [1998] UKEAT 701_98_0110 (1 October 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1998/701_98_0110.html Cite as: [1998] UKEAT 701_98_110, [1998] UKEAT 701_98_0110 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT)
MR K M HACK JP
MRS E HART
| APPELLANT | |
(2) EXEL/BRS LTD |
RESPONDENTS |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING - EX PARTE
| For the Appellants | MR ANTONY SENDALL (of Counsel) Instructed by: Mr J Calladine Messrs Robinsons Solicitors 83 Friar Gate Derby DE1 1FL |
MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): The purpose of this hearing is to determine whether there is an arguable point of law in an appeal which has been raised against an Industrial Tribunal decision promulgated on 20th March 1998.
It seems to us quite clear that the appeal raises issues of law which will have to be determined a full hearing. Those issues can be summarised in this way:
(1) The true construction of Regulation 5;
(2) the proper construction of Regulation 6;
(3) whether two decisions of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, namely BET Catering Services v Ball & Others and Whent & Others v T Cartledge Ltd should be followed;
(4) whether the Industrial Tribunal have correctly dealt with the issues which arose in relation to an individual employee, a respondent, Mr Lutak. They have failed, so it is said, to ask themselves whether the alterations to that person's contract were transfer connected or not.
Those four points seems to us to be obviously arguable.
Having looked at the PHD forms, it seems to us, although the estimate time is shorter by both parties, this case will take one day. We do not require the Notes of Evidence; neither party is asking for them. If there is a question, as there is, as to whether previous decisions of this Court should be followed, it will be appropriate that it should come before the President. It will therefore be marked 'Category P'. The appellants seek leave to amend their Notice of Appeal in the form set out in the appellant's skeleton argument at paragraph 1. We are happy to allow that amendment because we think that it makes clear that which was opaque in the original Notice of Appeal.
Accordingly, this matter will proceed to a full hearing on a date to be fixed.
