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 >> Byles v Xtra Vision (UK) Ltd [1992] UKEAT 704_91_1811 (18 November 1992) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1992/704_91_1811.html Cite as: [1992] UKEAT 704_91_1811 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE WOOD MC (P)
MR T S BATHO
MR K GRAHAM CBE
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant No Appearance by or on behalf
of the Appellant
MR JUSTICE WOOD (PRESIDENT): By a decision which was promulgated on the 11th November 1991 an Industrial Tribunal, sitting at Bedford under the Chairmanship of Mr Ash, found that the Applicant, Miss Janet Byles, had been unfairly dismissed. It was a case of constructive dismissal.
There was no appearance for the Respondents. The Notice of Appearance was struck out and they were debarred from defending the claim. The Company is now insolvent and in administration.
When assessing the compensation to be paid the Tribunal dealt with loss to the date of the hearing and future loss, and they extended future loss over some two years, because they thought it would take two years before Miss Byles was restored to her previous earning potential. Then they came to the question of pension. In fact, as we now know, the employer, the Company, had only made one payment towards the pension scheme. It was contractually bound to pay £40 per month, but Miss Byles had been making her contributions, £30 a month, so that at the date of dismissal the policy was worth much less than it should have been and, no doubt, Miss Byles will have a claim, either in the insolvency or against a fund for those payments which were not made. She should seek advice about the matter as it is far from straightforward. However, we are not dealing with that matter; she has appealed on the basis that the Tribunal failed to assess any future loss as a result of her dismissal. The Tribunal say this at paragraph 9 of their decision:
"Pension
In the normal course of events there will be a loss. However, the employer has not been making contributions and in such circumstances there is no future loss -"
We find it difficult to understand why there is no future loss, because there was an obligation to make payments and on dismissal that obligation has come to light and therefore, it seems to us, that there must be some future loss. What that future loss is is not for us to assess but it seems to us that there must be some future loss on the basis of the authorities.
We therefore propose to take the course of allowing this appeal on that point only and remitting it to the same Tribunal to see whether there is no future loss of any kind as a result of the unfair dismissal. The wording that is relevant is the wording of Section 74(1) and no doubt the Tribunal will seek assistance from the very detailed and able review of the law on the authorities from "Harvey on Industrial Relations and Employment Law".
This is not an easy point, we have taken some time to discuss it, but that is our decision and we would be grateful to the Tribunal if they could look into the matter afresh to see whether there is not some loss.
The appeal is allowed and the matter remitted to the same Tribunal on that one point.
