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!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Tudor Caravans Ltd v Walker [1997] UKEAT 232_97_2005 (20 May 1997) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1997/232_97_2005.html Cite as: [1997] UKEAT 232_97_2005 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT)
MISS A MACKIE OBE
MR S M SPRINGER MBE
| APPELLANT | |
| RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING - EX PARTE
| For the Appellant | MR P OLDHAM (of Counsel) Rollitt Farrell & Bladon Solicitors Wilberforce Court High Street Hull HU1 1YJ |
MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): This is a preliminary hearing to determine whether there is an arguable point of law raised by the appeal in this case.
We have been greatly assisted by Mr Oldham on behalf of the appellant.
He identified in his helpful skeleton argument a number of points which he contended were arguable and should go for a full hearing. We have looked with care at the points which he made, and are of the view that there is only one point which is reasonably arguable, and it may be an important point. It relates to the degree of future loss which the tribunal assessed at 52 weeks following the finding that the respondent to this appeal, the employee, had been unfairly dismissed.
The point arises in this way. The individual applicant employee suggested that he thought he would get another job within two months of the tribunal hearing. His representative suggested that it would be more likely six months. The employers put the period at three months. The Industrial Tribunal considered the period to be 52 weeks, in other words one year. The point of law is whether an Industrial Tribunal is entitled in those circumstances to prefer its own view to that of the views expressed to it. If so, whether they are obliged to give the parties an opportunity of considering that view before the tribunal finally reaches its conclusion. The case of Hammington v Berker Sportcraft Ltd [1080] ICR 248 will need to be carefully considered as also Dugdale v Kraft Foods [1977] ICR 48. It seems to us that apart from the way the point has been put, there may be a question can be put in this way: is the tribunal entitled to make an award for a loss beyond the amount of the loss contended for by the applicant?
Accordingly, we give leave on that point alone.
