[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Cearns & Brown Ltd v. Richardson [2001] UKEAT 1109_00_2601 (26 January 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/1109_00_2601.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 1109__2601, [2001] UKEAT 1109_00_2601

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR A GLENNIE (of Counsel) Instructed by: Messrs Bullivant Jones State House 22 Dale Street Liverpool L2 4UR


 


MR RECORDER UNDERHILL QC

1. We are satisfied that there is an arguable case here that the Tribunal erred in law, in failing to consider the factors identified at (a) to (c) under ground 1 of the Notice of Appeal. The remaining grounds are all, to a greater or lesser extent, aspects of the same respect in which the Tribunal is said to have gone wrong, and we are content to allow the appeal to proceed on all grounds.
2. We note that in the Skeleton Argument leave is sought to add an additional ground. We are not wholly convinced that it adds anything, but nor does it cause any problems; and if the Appellant wants it in, we are content to let her, on terms that she lodge amended grounds of appeal within 14 days incorporating the sixth ground.
3. There is one aspect of the case which may or may not be central, namely the Appellant's case that the points which it is now said the Tribunal failed to consider were fully raised before it at the original hearing. At present, we have only the Appellant's say-so that this was the case. We have no reason to doubt that; but it is prudent to contemplate the possibility that the Respondent may not agree. It seems to us that the sensible course is for the Appellant to write within 7 days to the Respondent, or the Respondent's solicitors, if there are solicitors on the record, asking whether it is agreed that these points were raised. We direct that the Respondent reply to such request within 21 days. We have been told that there was a direction for skeleton arguments: if that was complied with the skeletons should put this issue beyond doubt.
4. If there is no dispute, that is the end of the matter. But if there is a dispute, it will be necessary to ask the Chairman for her notes of the closing submissions. We therefore direct that if the Tribunal is notified by the Appellant within the next 42 days that there is an issue as to whether the points now relied on were made below, a request be made to the Chairman to provide her notes accordingly, we emphasise that that is only the notes of the closing submissions, on the basis that they may demonstrate what points are argued.
5. As we say, the point may not in the end be central. Without considering the arguments now, it may be that the points should have been considered by the Tribunal even if they were not expressly raised; but since it may be relied on, it would be very unfortunate if the Tribunal at the full appeal did not have all the information on which to resolve any dispute about what was argued below.
6. The estimate is two hours. The appeal will be Category C.