Appeal No.	 EAT/711/97

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 10 October 1997

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MORISON (P)
MR R JACKSON
MR B M WARMAN

MR W BECKETT	APPELLANT

IRWELL PRESS	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	APPELLANT IN PERSON
MR W S BECKETT
37 Rhyd Fadog
Deiniolen
Caernarfon Gwynedd	

	MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT):  The purpose of this hearing is to determine whether Mr Beckett has an arguable point of law in his appeal against a decision of an Industrial Tribunal held at St Asaph on 13 December 1996 and 10 February 1997.  By their decision they concluded that Mr Beckett had been unfairly dismissed but they also concluded that he was not entitled either to a basic award or to compensation on the grounds of his own contributory conduct.

	As a result of the submissions which have been made to us today, we think it is distinctly arguable on behalf of Mr Beckett that the Tribunal misdirected themselves in law in paragraph 14 of their decision.  Having identified what the reason was for the dismissal which was confined to only one of the three reasons which had been advanced by the employers, they appear to have blamed him for contributing to his own dismissal for matters which do not relate to that reason.

	It seems to us also to be arguable that the Industrial Tribunal have not sufficiently set out their reasoning to identify why it is that, having won his case on unfair dismissal, he then finds himself without any compensation at all.  There are, arguably, no sufficient findings to enable Mr Beckett to see why it is that he ended up with no compensation.  He also has told us today that very shortly after the Tribunal hearing his employers closed the whole business down.  He is, therefore, distinctly of the view, bearing in mind that there was no good reason in his judgment for his dismissal, that the Company were simply preparing themselves for the close down and had invented reasons for why he should have been dismissed, rather than paying him a redundancy payment. 

	It seems to us that those matters are properly to be ventilated before a division of the Employment Appeal Tribunal at a full hearing and we give leave on that basis.

	It does not seem to us, at the moment, that there would need to be any notes of evidence in relation to this matter.  The argument which has been advanced by Mr Beckett is perfectly clear on the face of the decision itself.  I would like to retain this case for myself.  It is category C.  It will take, in my view, an hour-and-a-half to argue.  No notes of evidence.