[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Soul v. Adwel International Ltd [2000] UKEAT 889_99_2205 (22 May 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/889_99_2205.html Cite as: [2000] UKEAT 889_99_2205

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MS E LAING (of Counsel) Appearing under the Employment Law Appeal Advice Scheme


 


MR JUSTICE NELSON

1. In this preliminary hearing, it was agreed by the Appellant Mr Soul that the matter should be dealt with by the Tribunal on the basis of the written material only without him attending. The Tribunal has had in addition to the submissions in writing made by Mr Soul the benefit of some further written material from Elizabeth Laing of Counsel, who attended here on behalf of Mr Soul. We have taken into account her draft amended grounds of appeal, even though she has not had the opportunity to speak to Mr Soul. We have considered those in conjunction with his written reasons and we are satisfied in all the circumstances that this is a proper case for the matter to go to the Tribunal for a full hearing.
2. We consider it arguable that in its decision of 19 May 1999 the Tribunal was in error when it found that the Appellant was not dismissed for asserting his statutory right, and that the Respondent had breached his contract of employment by dismissing him, but any award that might be made should be reduced by 75% because of the Appellant's own blameworthy conduct. This finding is properly open to challenge.
3. The basis upon which this Tribunal finds the matters are arguable are these. Firstly, there is no clear finding as to the basis upon which the Appellant contributed towards his dismissal or upon what basis he was found 75% to blame for his dismissal. He was not permitted to read part of the material which the Tribunal deemed irrelevant, but on the face of it, it may be that parts of his relationship with his manager were indeed relevant as to the assessment of his own conduct and should have been allowed before the Tribunal. That failure together with the failure to state reasons amount in our view, to arguable errors of law which should go before the full Tribunal so that the matter can be dealt with.
4. In addition to that main ground Ms Laing has raised for our consideration in her drafted amended grounds of appeal the following matter. When the Tribunal considered whether the Appellant was dismissed for asserting a statutory right, it seemed in various different paragraphs of its decision to be unclear as to whether or not it was dealing with asserting a right not to be unfairly dismissed, which a true reading of the papers suggests that was what was before them, or instead, simply saying that what Mr Soul was asserting was his right to notice of dismissal. We think that that too is arguable and should be considered at a full hearing by this Tribunal.
5. Ms Laing should take the opportunity to discuss the draft amended grounds with Mr Soul before formal leave to amend is granted, but that can be dealt with by way of a further written directions hearing though I would indicate this, that we for our part are of the view that those drafted amended grounds are on their face suitable for leave to be granted. Category C, and ½ day.