[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Hobart Manufacturing Company Ltd v. Mills [2000] EAT 1323_99_0102 (1 February 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/1323_99_0102.html Cite as: [2000] EAT 1323_99_102, [2000] EAT 1323_99_0102

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR TOM LINDEN OF COUNSEL INSTRUCTED BY: EER BROADWAY HOUSE TOTHILL STREET LONDON SW1H 9HG


 


JUDGE WILSON:-

1. This is a preliminary hearing concerning the proposed appeal by the Appellant company against the decision of the Employment Tribunal on 18^th August 1999 that the Applicant was unfairly dismissed and was entitled to a total monetary award of £10,200. Mr Linden has appeared on behalf of the company today and has amplified his skeleton argument which had been previously submitted.
2. The facts of the matter may be shortly stated for the purposes of this judgment. The Applicant had 20 years employment with the Respondent company during which there had been nothing adverse and during which he had been regularly promoted. There was then a serious incident which led to his suspension and counselling for severe stress and, in due course, hospitalisation. The hospitalisation was compulsory, and for a mental condition, and ultimately, after reports from those responsible for his treatment had been received, the company dismissed the Applicant for incapacity after six months. The company had indicated some months previously that unless the Applicant was in a position to say when he would be able to resume his employment, this was a course they would have to consider.
3. The Applicant, however, claimed that it was too hastily concluded that dismissal should result. He should have been reinstated in any case because subsequently he has found other employment and has been able to discharge his functions perfectly acceptably. The Appellant company on the other hand says that the medical reports justified their decision. Having listened to Mr Linden's arguments we are satisfied that the matter should proceed to a full hearing on three questions:

(i) Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in law in failing to direct itself that in cases where the facts were similar to those found by this Tribunal, there was a range of reasonable responses open to the Employer.

(ii) Whether in its findings concerning consultation before deciding on dismissal the Employment Tribunal substituted its own view for that of the hypothetical reasonable employer.

(iii) Whether, with regard to compensation, the Employment Tribunal erred in law in not considering the provisions in the case of Polkey v E A Dayton Services Limited [1988] ICR 142 before quantification of compensation.

4. We direct that the full hearing should not take place before the Court of Appeal judgment in the case of Haddon v Van Den Bergh Foods Limited 1999 IRLR 672 has been published. If, and when it is listed, it should be categorised C and time estimate 3 hours.