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!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Mouat v Q E Catering Ltd [1998] UKEAT 722_98_0110 (1 October 1998)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1998/722_98_0110.html
Cite as: [1998] UKEAT 722_98_110, [1998] UKEAT 722_98_0110

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]


BAILII case number: [1998] UKEAT 722_98_0110
Appeal No. EAT/722/98

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS
             At the Tribunal
             On 1 October 1998

Before

THE HONOURABLE LORD JOHNSTON

MR J C SHRIGLEY

MR S M SPRINGER MBE



MRS M B MOUAT APPELLANT

Q E CATERING LTD RESPONDENT


Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING - EX PARTE

© Copyright 1998


    APPEARANCES

     

    For the Appellant MISS V BATHER
    (of Counsel)
    Instructed by:
    Glynis Newbold
    DAS Legal Expenses Insurance Co Ltd
    DAS House
    Quay Side
    Temple Back
    Bristol
    BS1 6NH
       


     

    LORD JOHNSTON: This is a preliminary hearing in the appeal at the instance of Mrs M B Mouat in respect of a decision of the Industrial Tribunal which dismissed her Originating Application for a claim of unfair dismissal against her former employers, Q E Catering Ltd.

    The appeal is presented on two quite separate grounds. In the first place it is alleged that the conduct of the Chairman as the hearing under reference to an affidavit presented to this tribunal by the Counsel who appeared at the time, exhibited bias to say the least and inadequate judicial positions which regard to the submissions that were being made which are sufficient, it was submitted, to vitiate the hearing. The second ground is that it relates to the merits of the case and complains, in our view quite legitimately, that the tribunal failed properly to investigate the full implications of the various contractual variations that were put forward in this case, as to whether or not the test in Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp [1978] IRLR 27 with regard to fundamental breach of contract was met.

    We are absolutely satisfied that the second ground in relation to the merits of the case reveals a highly arguable position which much proceed to a full hearing, not least because the case was decided on the basis of no case to answer without a proper investigation upon the evidence as to the full implications of what the appellant was complaining about in relation to the conduct of her employer.

    With considerable hesitation, because we consider that issues of bias and the like with regard to the conduct of the tribunal and particularly its Chairman, are both difficult to determine and to some extent diverting from the real issue, we will also allow that matter to go forward, though we would urge strongly upon Mrs Mouat's advisers to consider whether or not the case is helped by embarking further down that track.

    On this basis the case will be allowed to go to a full hearing.


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1998/722_98_0110.html