[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Advena Ltd v. Harrison [2000] UKEAT 144_00_1810 (18 October 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/144_00_1810.html Cite as: [2000] UKEAT 144__1810, [2000] UKEAT 144_00_1810

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellants	MR J ADCOCK (Representative) Advena Ltd Milnwood 13 North Parade Horsham West Sussex RH12 2BT


 


JUDGE REID QC: This is an ex parte preliminary hearing in the appeal by Advena Ltd against the decision of an Employment Tribunal held at Brighton by which they held that the applicant, the respondent to the appeal, was unfairly dismissed and that the appellant should pay compensation for unfair dismissal in sum of £4,098.

1. The hearing before the tribunal was conducted in the absence of any representative of Advena Ltd. Mr Adcock, the moving spirit, if I can put it that way of Advena Ltd, had business difficulties and so put in written representations. Those written representations dealt with the complaints which were made in the from IT1 which culminated in this paragraph:

"I claim unfair dismissal due to my pregnancy and unlawful sex discrimination. I do not believe that this was a genuine redundancy."

2. In the light of that claim it is hardly surprising that Mr Adock's written response on behalf of the company did not deal with the question of whether, there being a genuine redundancy, the dismissal was nonetheless unfair because of the manner in which the redundancy process was carried through, but it was on this ground that the tribunal decided in favour of the applicant. Effectively therefore, Advena Ltd had no opportunity of meeting the case on which the applicant succeeded. Indeed, it looks as if it was a case which was largely brought to light as a result of the investigations of the tribunal.
3. In those circumstances, it seems clear to us that this is a matter which should go to a full inter partes hearing of the appeal and we so direct.
4. I should add speaking for my part, that the Appeal Tribunal may also want to look at the question of compensation, but that is a matter which may or may not become relevant at the hearing of the full appeal.
5. In those circumstances we direct that the matter should go to a full appeal. We direct that it be listed for ½ a day, Category C.
6. I should add that there was an application for review which was turned down. It does not seem that we need say anything further about that in the light of the fact that the substantive decision is now going to be subject to a full appeal.