[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Lankey v. British Airways Plc [2001] UKEAT 901_01_2711 (27 November 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/901_01_2711.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 901_01_2711, [2001] UKEAT 901_1_2711

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MISS J HEAL (of Counsel) Instructed by: Messrs A J Hows & Associates Solicitors 81 New Road Harlington Hayes Middlesex UB3 5BG


 


JUDGE D PUGSLEY

1. This is a preliminary hearing seeking to identify whether there is an error of law in the Tribunal's Decision.
2. The Appellant was dismissed for gross misconduct after he had been with the Respondent Company for some thirty odd years. The hearing lasted five days.
3. At paragraph (xvi) the Tribunal said this:

"The Tribunal found as a fact that the Respondents conducted a reasonable investigation and followed a fair procedure."

In this case there was no dispute that there was a dismissal.

The Applicants produced a document setting out in skeleton form their final submissions. It is not proposed to set out either the Applicants or the Respondent's arguments in any detail. Both submissions lasted for longer than an hour and both made detailed reference to the facts and to the cases mentioned at the beginning of this decision. The Applicants submission looked at the reason for dismissal, the question of bias/investigation, the procedure followed and what was submitted, was the changing case against the applicant, the appeals and, finally addressed the question of whether or not dismissal was a fair sanction.

The Respondents dealt with all these matters in detail in their submissions in response. The Tribunal unanimously preferred the submissions of the Respondents in their totality which dealt comprehensively with each and every point raised for an on behalf of the Applicant."

4. Miss Heal says, politely but firmly, that this is simply not good enough, that a party is entitled to have a feeling, when they read a decision, that the points they raised were considered by the Tribunal and of their major findings of the principal part of the account as set out. Miss Heal cites those felicitous words of Lord Justice Bingham cited so often, but nevertheless, they bear repetition. It is:

" On a number of occasions we made plain that decisions of an industrial tribunal is not required to be an elaborate formalistic product of refined legal draughtmanship, but it must contain an outline of the story which had given rise to the complaint and a summary of the Tribunal's basic factual conclusions and a statement of reasons that led them to reach the conclusion which they did, on those basic facts. The parties are entitled to be told why they had won or lost. There should be a sufficient account of facts and of the reasoning, to enable the EAT or further appeals at this Court to see whether any question of law arises………"

Meek -v-Birmingham District Council [1987] IRLR 250.

5. We think it is arguable that in this case the Tribunal's conclusions became their reasons; that the main salient features of the case were not put in the Decision; that this offends the basic precept of fairness that in broad terms, the parties should know why they had won or lost.
6. We say no more than that it is arguable and we wish to say, and in terms say, that we are not making or taking any view as to whether, ultimately, this matter were ever to be reconsidered, what decision the Tribunal would make, that is not our position, but we think at this stage it is at least arguable.
7. Having seen the Applicant's skeleton submissions that were before the Tribunal we are satisfied this case should be argued before a full Tribunal. Category C, half a day. No Chairman's notes and the usual rules about Skeleton Arguments apply.