![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Fox v. MCCH Society Ltd [2000] UKEAT 1364_99_2003 (20 March 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/1364_99_2003.html Cite as: [2000] UKEAT 1364_99_2003 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal | |
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE BURTON
MR P M SMITH
MR T C THOMAS CBE
APPELLANT | |
RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING – EX PARTE
For the Appellant | MR W BEGLAN (of Counsel) Messrs Kenneth Elliot & Rowe Solicitors 162-166 South Street Romford Essex RM1 1SX |
MR JUSTICE BURTON: This is a preliminary hearing of an appeal by Miss Fox, the Appellant, against her dismissal by MCCH Society Ltd, which is a charity running various homes, by whom for a short period the Appellant was appointed first acting manager and then manager of one those homes. The Tribunal found that Miss Fox had been fairly dismissed.
"The Applicant has submitted that the requirement of the Regulatory Authority had been misunderstood fundamentally. We cannot accept this submission. …"
Mr Beglan submits that even that conclusion must be explored further on the ground that it must have been perverse, given the evidence that was put forward, which he submits should have led to a conclusion that the Respondent in fact did not consider the relevant letter of 26th January 1998 and its appendix, because had it done so it must have acted otherwise than it did. The Tribunal, it appears to us, did consider that argument too, when later in the paragraph they reiterate:
"We do not agree that the Respondent misinterpreted or misunderstood the paragraph. …"
There must be implied within that conclusion the supplementary conclusion that the Respondent did actually consider the paragraph in order to arrive at a reasonable interpretation or understanding of it. It is a heavy burden which an Appellant seeks to undertake when he suggests that the Tribunal was perverse, but in this case it seems to us particularly difficult, given the express way in which the Tribunal addressed an argument which he himself, as he accepted, put forward in written submissions, by reference to evidence which he specifically drew to the attention of the Tribunal, only for them to reject it.
"appointing someone of relevant expertise and qualifications to give clinical/specialist support to the Applicant and her team; redeploying the Applicant and replacing her with such a qualified person; and buying-in external consultancy from an appropriate expert."
The first and third, were, the tribunal concluded, reasonably rejected by the Respondent. They come to that conclusion in paragraph 24(iv), and again it was a submission that was expressly made by Mr Beglan to the tribunal:
"Criticism is made that the Respondent did not take up other options …"
and was rejected by the Tribunal. We conclude that the Tribunal, having heard the evidence over two days, reached a conclusion that was perfectly open to them.