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!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> ICG (UK) (t/a Searle Manufacturing Co) v. Bone [2002] UKEAT 1397_01_2105 (21 May 2002)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2002/1397_01_2105.html
Cite as: [2002] UKEAT 1397_1_2105, [2002] UKEAT 1397_01_2105

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


BAILII case number: [2002] UKEAT 1397_01_2105
Appeal No. EAT/1397/01

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS
             At the Tribunal
             On 21 May 2002

Before

MISS RECORDER ELIZABETH SLADE QC

MR B GIBBS

MS H PITCHER



ICG (UK) T/A SEARLE MANUFACTURING CO APPELLANT

MR J BONE RESPONDENT


Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

© Copyright 2002


    APPEARANCES

     

    For the Appellant MR T LINDEN
    (of Counsel)
    Instructed By:
    Engineering Employers' Federation
    Broadway House
    Tothill Street
    London SW1H 9HQ
       


     

    MISS RECORDER ELIZABETH SLADE QC:

  1. This is the preliminary hearing of an appeal against the Reserved Decision of an Employment Tribunal which determined that the Applicant was entitled to a redundancy payment, enhanced in accordance with a contractual agreement, which incorporated an agreement reached with the relevant Trade Union.
  2. The appeal raises a very short point in that the Tribunal erred in applying the statutory definition of redundancy to a contractual claim for an enhanced redundancy payment. It is said that the contract provided for a particular definition of redundancy which gave rise to the enhanced redundancy payment and it is that which should have been considered by the Employment Tribunal, rather than the statutory test.
  3. We consider that this appeal raises an arguable point of law as outlined briefly in what we have just said and we allow this appeal to proceed to a full hearing.


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2002/1397_01_2105.html