[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Chronos Richardson Ltd v. Watson [2000] UKEAT 1340_99_0102 (1 February 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/1340_99_0102.html Cite as: [2000] UKEAT 1340_99_102, [2000] UKEAT 1340_99_0102

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	TOM LINDEN (OF COUNSEL) INSTRUCTED BY: MS LUCY ATHERTON EEF SOLICITOR BROADWAY HOUSE TOTHILL STREET LONDON SW1H 9NQ


 


JUDGE WILSON:-

1. This has been the preliminary hearing of the proposed appeal by the company which was the Respondent before the Employment Tribunal. The Employment Tribunal was dealing with a redundancy dismissal and the Applicant was asserting that there was no consultation or notification of an impending redundancy position, he claimed that he was presented with a fait acomplis at a 10 minute interview where there was no room for discussion about the basis of the selection.
2. The Respondent admitted that there had been a redundancy situation but asserted that the procedures were properly followed and that the Applicant had not appealed against his selection when he was informed of it. The Employment Tribunal found that the Applicant was unfairly dismissed. That decision was a majority decision and the reasons for it were set out in paragraphs 13-15 of the decision. The Employment Tribunal went on to assess compensation at £12,000. The minority view of the Chairman was set out in paragraph 16 of the decision.
3. Having considered Mr Linden's skeleton argument which he has amplified before us today, we are satisfied that the matter should proceed to a full hearing on full argument concerning one question as to liability and one question as to quantum. We phrase the issues as follows:

(1) Whether the majority of the Employment Tribunal erred in law in substituting their own view about suitable criteria for selection and the adequacy of consultation in the procedure adopted;

(2) Whether in quantifying compensation the Employment Tribunal erred in law in not taking into consideration the principles in Polkey v E A Dayton Services Limited [1988] ICR page 42.

4. We consider that the matter should be categorised C with a time estimate of two hours