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 >> Pellowe v Pendragon Plc [1998] UKEAT 804_98_0110 (1 October 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1998/804_98_0110.html Cite as: [1998] UKEAT 804_98_110, [1998] UKEAT 804_98_0110 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE H J BYRT QC
MR R JACKSON
MR A E R MANNERS
| APPELLANT | |
| RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
| For the Appellant | Mr Cavamagh (of Counsel) |
JUDGE JOHN BYRT QC: This is a preliminary hearing in an appeal against a decision promulgated on 21 April 1998 of an Employment Tribunal Chairman sitting alone in Manchester whereby he rejected the employee's contention that the employers were in breach of contract in that they failed to provide her with an enhanced redundancy payment.
Mrs Pellowe does not attend. We are unaware of the reasons why she does not, but in the circumstances there are three options to follow. One is to strike out her case; two, to adjourn the matter or three, if we can see there is a point of law arising from our own perusal of the papers, allow this matter to go forward to a full hearing
On perusing the papers, we have ourselves identified a point of law. The Employment Tribunal has dealt with the matter by asking whether there is an expressed term that the employer should pay Mrs Pellowe an enhanced redundancy payment. They came to the conclusion that there was no such express term, but they did not consider the possibility that an implied term might have has arisen as a result of the usage and practice of the parties. We think this is an arguable point of law which can be put forward on her behalf and rather than strike her case out, we think it appropriate to let this matter go forward to a full hearing on that one point of law.
We think that this is a matter which should be classed as Category C and estimate that the time allowed for this argument should be 2 hours.
