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

United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Glass Systems (UK) Ltd v. Allsopp [2001] UKEAT 177_01_0405 (4 May 2001)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/177_01_0405.html
Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 177_01_0405, [2001] UKEAT 177_1_405

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


BAILII case number: [2001] UKEAT 177_01_0405
Appeal No. EAT/177/01

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS
             At the Tribunal
             On 4 May 2001

Before

HER HONOUR JUDGE A WAKEFIELD

MR B R GIBBS

MR D J HODGKINS CB



GLASS SYSTEMS (UK) LTD APPELLANT

MR C ALLSOPP RESPONDENT


Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

© Copyright 2001


    APPEARANCES

     

    For the Appellant MR P GREATOREX
    (Of Counsel)
    Instructed by Richards C Hall & Partners
    Crown Buildings
    121A Sanghall Road
    Blacon
    Chester
    CH1 5ET
       


     

    JUDGE WAKEFIELD

  1. This is an Ex Parte Preliminary Hearing of an Appeal by Glass Systems (UK) Limited against the decision of an Employment Tribunal sitting at Sheffield on 4 December 2000. The decision was as to remedy only. The Employment Tribunal awarded compensation up to the date of the hearing but made no award in respect of future loss, giving as the reason for the latter aspect of the decision that:
  2. "If it was correct that the applicant was incapable of work then it was not just and equitable that the respondent should in any way finance this incapacity beyond the level at which the state was doing so."

    This was a reference to the fact that since December 1998, only one month after the dismissal of the Respondent (the Applicant in the original proceedings) he had been in receipt of incapacity benefit.

  3. The Employment Tribunal gave no reason as to why this argument against compensation for the post hearing period did not also apply to the pre-hearing period, at least from the date when the Respondent started to be in receipt of incapacity benefit.
  4. The Employment Tribunal also appeared to pay no regard to the fact that under the contract of employment the Respondent would during the relevant period only have been entitled, in the events which had occurred to statutory sick pay and not to full pay.
  5. We consider that there may therefore have been errors of law in the approach of the Employment Tribunal and that the matter should proceed to a full hearing. That hearing may also wish to have regard to any public policy considerations which arise from the admission by the Respondent that he was "playing the system" in claiming incapacity benefits at a time when, as he asserted to the Employment Tribunal, he was in fact fully fit for normal work.


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/177_01_0405.html