Appeal No.	 EAT/756/99

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 8 October 1999

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE HOLLAND
MS S R CORBY
MRS R A VICKERS

MRS GILLIAN EARL	APPELLANT

MIDLANDS COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR N XYDIAS
(of Counsel)
Instructed by
Goodger Auden Solicitors
2/4 Lichfield Street
Burton Upon Trent
Staffordshire  DE14 3RB	

	MR JUSTICE HOLLAND:	This tragic matter has been listed before us this morning by way of preliminary hearing.  It is our task to decide whether the appeal raises sufficient apparent merit to justify an inter partes hearing.  We are quite confident that it does and we direct that there be such a hearing.  

1	To assist the Tribunal concerned with this matter on that further occasion the ground that is appealed to all of us relates to the approach of the Tribunal from paragraph 12 of the Extended Reasons onwards.  Essentially our concern can be put as follows.  Given that the view was taken that the only basis for a fair dismissal could have been incapacity was the logic of that followed through, in particular as to analysis, as to the way matters should have progressed on an incapacity basis, and more pertinently, as to how that in its turn should be reflected in the award of compensation that is made.  It is in our view arguable that the thread was lost in paragraph 12 and that thereafter there was over much reliance upon a submission made by a Trade Union representative on an earlier occasion to a different body. 

2	There is a further matter that arises and that is the interplay between the provisions of section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996 and the terms of section 4(2) Disability Discrimination Act 1995.  In our present judgment this case does raise acutely the relationship between these respective statutory provisions and it will certainly be for the Tribunal on the inter partes hearing to reflect further upon the application of the Disability Discrimination Act to this particular situation.  

3	Thus it is for those reasons that we make the order already set out in this judgment.  So far as listing; Category B, length, half a day.  We would direct that the parties agree a bundle of documentation for use by this Tribunal for the purposes of that appeal.