Appeal No.	EAT/1132/01

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 25 March 2002

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE HOLLAND
MRS J M MATTHIAS
MR A D TUFFIN CBE

MR A U KHAN	APPELLANT

AKHTER COMPUTERS LTD 	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MISS P WALSH
(Solicitor)
Instructed By:
Messrs L Bingham & Co
New Loom House
101 Back Church Lane
London E1 1LU	

MR JUSTICE HOLLAND:

1	This matter is before us today by way of a preliminary hearing.  It is our task to decide whether the matter should be adjourned for an inter partes hearing or whether there is such an absence of apparent error in the Decision of the Employment Tribunal that the matter should be dismissed forthwith.

2	In the event we have decided that there is a point justifying an inter partes hearing.  It arises in this regard.  By reference to section 98(1) and (2) the Employment Tribunal decided, on grounds that seem to us to be sustainable, that the reason for the Applicant’s dismissal was redundancy.  

3	What we are concerned about is whether the Tribunal adequately tackled the ensuing issue as to whether that dismissal was fair having regard to that which is stipulated by section 98(4).  True it is that the Tribunal was concerned by the absence of consultation but it appears to have assumed that the consultation would necessarily have resulted in a finding that the dismissal was fair.   It does not appear to have applied its mind to the merits of the Applicant’s case as to the potential impact of consultation.

4	The point is made in the skeleton argument that there was no consideration given to the Applicant’s long service and to other factors that might bear upon his election for redundancy.  That point seems to us to be arguable and on that basis we adjourn this matter to an inter partes hearing.  Category C and a time estimate of two hours.  We direct an exchange of skeleton arguments 14 days from the hearing.