BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Shipham & Co Ltd v. Skinner [2000] UKEAT 840_00_0311 (3 November 2000)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/840_00_0311.html
Cite as: [2000] UKEAT 840__311, [2000] UKEAT 840_00_0311

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


BAILII case number: [2000] UKEAT 840_00_0311
Appeal No. EAT/840/00

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS
             At the Tribunal
             On 3 November 2000

Before

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE CHARLES

MS G MILLS

PROFESSOR P D WICKENS OBE



SHIPHAM & CO LTD APPELLANT

MR D E SKINNER RESPONDENT


Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

© Copyright 2000


    APPEARANCES

     

    For the Appellants MR THOMAS LINDEN
    (of Counsel)
    Instructed By:
    The Engineering Employers Federation
    Broadway House
    Tothill Street
    London
    SW1H 9NQ
       


     

    MR JUSTICE CHARLES:

  1. This appeal comes before us today by way of preliminary hearing. Our task therefore is to consider whether or not it raises points of law that are reasonably arguable.
  2. The Notice of Appeal is professionally drafted and we have had the benefit of a Skeleton Argument from Counsel. In our judgment the grounds set out in the Notice of Appeal and expanded on in that Skeleton Argument raise points of law that are reasonably arguable and this appeal should therefore proceed to a full hearing on the basis of the existing Notice of Appeal.
  3. We have discussed with Counsel the categorisation of the case. As he puts it, we would have categorised it as "C" but in our view (as Counsel recognises) there is potential on this appeal for argument as to existing authority and the inter-relationship of sections in the Employment Rights Act 1996, we have therefore decided to give this case a Category B and to direct that it should be listed for half to three-quarters of a day.


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/840_00_0311.html