[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Hi Fashion Music Co-Op v. James [2000] UKEAT 510_00_1312 (13 December 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/510_00_1312.html Cite as: [2000] UKEAT 510_00_1312, [2000] UKEAT 510__1312

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

APPEARANCES

 

EAT/510/00 & EAT/712/00 For the Appellant ______________________________________________ EAT/612/00 For the Appellant	MR RAOUL DOWNEY (of Counsel) Appearing under the Employment Law Appeal Advice Scheme ____________________________ MS ELAINE HESLOP Solicitor Islington Law Centre 161 Hornsey Road London N7 6DU


 


JUDGE D M LEVY

1. On 30 July 1998, Ms Jane James lodged a complaint at an Industrial Tribunal complaining of unfair dismissal, sex discrimination, victimisation and breach of contract. The complaint was heard by a Tribunal sitting at London South on 5, 6, 7 and 17 January 2000, on 11 February 2000 the decision of the Tribunal was promulgated.
2. The unanimous decision was that Ms James was unfairly dismissed; that the complaint of sexual discrimination was found to be unfounded; her complaint that she suffered an unlawful deduction of wages was dismissed, on withdrawal by the Applicant. The Tribunal held that on the complaint which succeeded that any financial remedy payable to her should be reduced by 20%.
3. Issues as to remedy, arising from the decision, were to be heard at a hearing fixed for 20 March 2000. There was in fact a remedy hearing on the appointed date and, as a result of that hearing, a net compensatory award of £4,937.82 was made.
4. From the first, and substantive hearing, of Ms James's complaint, the employer appeals. The grounds of appeal are set out in the Notice of Appeal, which runs to some pages. We have had the assistance of Mr Downey, under the ELAAS scheme, who has identified for us, points which, we think, can properly be taken on an appeal.
5. Before we say what those are, it would be proper for us to set out, very very briefly, the background to her complaint. There appears to have been a fight in the workplace, involving Ms James; the organisation of the employer was, indeed, very small. The investigation of the fight was found to be inadequate by the Employment Tribunal, and it found that at the re-hearing of the complaint - the appeal against the decision by the employer - any failures in the first hearing had not been corrected, and therefore the dismissal was unfair.
6. We have been persuaded, by the submissions of Mr Downey, that it is at least arguable that that finding, by the Tribunal, is unsubstantiated and we would give leave for the appeal to go forward on the grounds which have been identified by Mr Downey in the course of the hearing, relating to the re-hearing. There should be an amended Notice served, abandoning all other grounds in the Notice of Appeal lodged, replacing them with the ground which we have identified.
7. We should say that the Notice of Appeal sets out grounds of complaint as to the first hearing, which we do not think have any arguable hope of success by the employer, should that go to appeal.
8. Both employer and employee lodge appeals against the decision on the remedy hearing. It seems possible that if the appeal is successful, that there would have to be a fresh remedy hearing, but if it is not, then it would be necessary for the points of appeal to be decided. It is unusual for there to be successful appeals against remedy hearings, where the Tribunal has a fairly free hand, but having heard Ms Heslop on behalf of Ms James we are satisfied that both appeal and cross-appeal on the remedy here, raise arguable points which should go forward to a full hearing.
9. Before we give final directions on any of these matters, we just would like to enquire from the representatives before us what other directions are sought. We know that in her appeal, Ms Heslop had sought to have Notes of Evidence, but we do not think this was really pursued.
10. We would also add that we know that this is a small organisation. Before both sides go into the expense of an appeal, it would be sensible indeed, if heads could be got together, to see if there was some way of avoiding what would, inevitably, be an expensive appeal, and inevitably put both parties to some expense.
11. The Chairman should be asked to produce his Notes of Evidence of the first hearing and all Notes of Evidence as to the re-hearing, particularly the evidence of Mr Pond, on the remedy hearing. The Chairman should be asked to produce Notes of Evidence of the Appellant. If the parties cannot agree as to documentation before the Tribunal on disability benefit, then the Chairman's Notes on that evidence should also be sought.
12. Parties should inform the Tribunal by January 10 whether such agreement has been reached, so that the Chairman will be approached, if it is necessary after that date. An amended Notice of Appeal on behalf of the Appellant Employer should also be lodged by January 10, but we would prefer it, if possible, to be in the Court by the end of this term's sittings.