[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> ASL Scaffolding Ltd v Chaplin [1997] UKEAT 730_97_1010 (10 October 1997) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1997/730_97_1010.html Cite as: [1997] UKEAT 730_97_1010

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellants	MR P BUTTERWORTH (Of Counsel) Messrs Norton Peskett Solicitors 148 London Road North Lowestoft Suffolk NR32 1HF


 


JUDGE BYRT QC: This is a Preliminary Hearing in relation to an appeal against the decision of the Industrial Tribunal sitting at Norwich. The decision was promulgated in March 1997. By that decision the Industrial Tribunal held that the employee, Mr Chaplin, had been unfairly dismissed and was entitled to an award of some £10,781. The employers have appealed that decision on the question of compensation only.

Quite shortly, the facts are, that Mr Chaplin was employed by the Appellants till 16 October 1996, on oil platforms in the North sea, when his employment was terminated by reason of redundancy. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the dismissal was unfair for lack of consultation and the fact that no proper procedures for the selection were implemented. They went on to consider the question of compensation. They eventually awarded him £6,566 for loss of pay to the date of hearing in February and thereafter £4,214 for loss of future earnings up until the end of April.

Mr Butterworth has attended here today to argue the matter on behalf of the Appellants on the issue of compensation. He says that the Industrial Tribunal misdirected themselves in view of the evidence of Mr Chaplin himself, to the effect that his job in any event would have come to an end either in the December or February. Either way, his job would have come to an end a long time before April, the date which the Industrial Tribunal used for measuring compensation.

We think that Mr Butterworth has an arguable point and the matter should therefore go forward to a full hearing.