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 >> Arthur Anderson (A Firm) & Anor v. Taylor [2000] EAT 413_99_1901 (19 January 2000)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/413_99_1901.html
Cite as: [2000] EAT 413_99_1901

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

BAILII case number: [2000] EAT 413_99_1901
Appeal No. EAT/413/99

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS
             At the Tribunal
             On 19 January 2000

Before

MR COMMISSIONER HOWELL QC

MR L D COWAN

MS B SWITZER


1) ARTHUR ANDERSON (A FIRM) APPELLANT

2)MR R CARR
MISS L TAYLOR
RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised

© Copyright 2000

    APPEARANCES

     

    For the Appellants MR VERNON FLYNN
    (of Counsel)
    Instructed by:
    Ms C Bloodworth
    Messrs Charles Russell
    8-10 Fetter Lane
    London EC4A 1RS
    For the Respondent CAROLINE UNDERHILL
    (of Counsel)
    Avon & BristoL Law Centre
    2 Moon Street
    Stokes Croft
    Bristol, BS2 8QE


     

    MR COMMISSIONER HOWELL QC

  1. Despite the inconvenience of this application for adjournment not having come on an agreed basis before this Tribunal before 10 minutes ago, we are all of the view that the sensible and practicable course is to defer the full hearing of this appeal until after the Court of Appeal's judgment in Tansell. We therefore simply stand over the hearing of this appeal, to be restored for the first convenient date after the issue of the Court of Appeal's judgment in the Tansell case, MHC Consulting Services Ltd –v- Tansell [1999] ICR 1211. I suppose there is a possibility that one party or the other in the Tansell case would want to take the matter even further. We will not make any deferring directions to cover that possibility at the moment. If it is obvious that it is going to the House of Lords and it remains a major issue then you can make a further application (which I hope will be made in clear terms, as early as possible, and on an agreed basis) if a further postponement is sought.

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/413_99_1901.html