[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Day v. Johnson [1999] UKEAT 70_99_0505 (5 May 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/70_99_0505.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 70_99_505, [1999] UKEAT 70_99_0505

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MISS A BEVITT (OF COUNSEL) APPEARING UNDER THE EMPLOYMENT LAW APPEAL ADVICE SCHEME


 


JUDGE JOHN BYRT: This is preliminary hearing in an appeal from a decision promulgated on 30th November 1998 of an Employment Tribunal sitting at Birmingham whereby they held that the Employee, Mr Johnson, had been unfairly dismissed. The Employer now appeals. Although it is said that we have extended reasons supporting the Tribunal's decision it is arguable that they are so abbreviated that it is difficult really for anyone to see why the Applicant won or the Employer lost. We think this is a fundamental point which should go forward to a full hearing.

We have given leave to the Appellant to amend his Notice of Appeal. It sets out a number of grounds of appeal. We think that when this matter goes forward to a full hearing, each of those points set out in the Amended Notice should be considered. By fastening onto the first point we would not wish to be taken to indicate that we are not allowing the appeal to go forward on the basis of the other points as well.

There is one point however, which is a matter of concern to us. In the Tribunal's decision it was stated that:

"If the Applicant has not requested the Tribunal in writing to restore this Application for a further hearing on or before the 1st March of this year, by consent this Application will on that date be treated as having been withdrawn by the Applicant and it will be dismissed."

Miss Bevitt, who has appeared here under the ELAAS scheme, has no knowledge nor does her client as to whether such Application was made before 1st March 1999. If no such application was made, then there is the real possibility that, administratively, this application has been dismissed. This is something which obviously should be ascertained as soon as possible to save the costs, of bringing this matter back for a full hearing before this Tribunal when it has already been disposed of.