(Amended Judgment 6/1/99)	Appeal No.	 EAT/452/98

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On  1 June 1998

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MORISON (P)
MR K M HACK JP
MR S M SPRINGER MBE

MS K BROWN	APPELLANT

QUANTUM CARE LTD	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR M HARDING
(Representative)
CAB Adviser
73 B Hagden Lane
Watford
Herts WD1 8NA	

	MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT):     The purpose of this hearing is to determine whether there is an arguable point of law, which the Appellant wishes to raise in her appeal against a decision of an Industrial Tribunal held at Stratford, after a three-day hearing.  The written reasons for the decision were sent to the parties on 18 February 1998.

	The Industrial Tribunal’s decision fell into three parts.  Firstly, there was a refusal by them to allow the Applicant to amend her complaint to add a complaint of sex discrimination.  Second, they concluded that she had been unfairly dismissed by reason of her conduct and, third, they said that it was just and equitable to reduce her basic and compensatory awards by 100%.

	The appeal, we wish to make clear, is in relation only to the third finding; that is, the percentage reduction.  It seems to us that there are three points which are arguable:

	Firstly, that the Industrial Tribunal failed to consider the employer’s failure to take into account the Applicant’s state of health when judging her performance in her duties.

	Secondly, that the Industrial Tribunal, having concluded that every reasonable employer would have adjourned the hearing on 20 November, should have gone on to ask themselves the question as to when a hearing could fairly have taken place and, on that basis, as we think it arguable, she would be entitled, at least, to the compensation for that period of time.

	And thirdly, and perhaps more importantly, the Appellant would wish to argue that the Industrial Tribunal erred in law in deducting 100% from her award because they, themselves, have failed to take into account her ill-health and the way it contributed to, or may have contributed to, the performance of her duties.  The contribution element is in respect of blameworthy conduct and if she was not performing her duties adequately through ill-health, then arguably that was not blameworthy conduct.

	Those, as it seems to us, are the three points at issue.  There will be no requirements for the notes of evidence in this case.  It is not a perversity appeal.  It will be listed as a Category C case, which means that it can be heard by any judge sitting here.  I estimate that with a fair wind and good advocacy the appeal will take approximately one hour and a half.