 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> G P Haden & Associates v Stock [1994] UKEAT 166_93_2504 (25 April 1994) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1994/166_93_2504.html Cite as: [1994] UKEAT 166_93_2504 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
I N T E R N A L
At the Tribunal
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (P)
MR R JACKSON
MR R H PHIPPS
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellants No appearance/representation
by or on behalf of the Appellants
MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (PRESIDENT): This is an appeal against the decision of the Industrial Tribunal held at Cardiff on the 7th December 1992. For reasons notified to the parties on 11th January 1993 the Tribunal unanimously decided that the Respondent's request for a review of an earlier decision, promulgated on the 28th July 1992, should be refused.
The earlier decision was given following a hearing at Cardiff on the 29th June 1992. The Tribunal unanimously decided that the continuity of employment of the Applicant, Mr David Paul Stock, was preserved from the 21 January 1972 until the 20th December 1991. The result was that he was held to be entitled to a redundancy payment of £3,304.48. The Order was made against his former employers G P Haden & Associates Ltd.
G P Haden & Associates, firm of engineers and surveyors practising in Swansea, were dissatisfied with both the original decision notified on the 28th July 1992 and with the decision for the review notified on the 11th January 1993. They, therefore, issued a Notice of Appeal, dated 17th February 1993.
The question for the decision of the Tribunal was concerned with whether there had been two or more breaks in the continuity of employment of Mr Stock.
The grounds of appeal put forward by G P Haden were that:
"1. Only selected information brought to the original hearing and not previously made available to the parties was allowed in evidence.
2. In particular, the transcript of the tape recording brought by the Appellant [G P Haden] to the hearing in accordance with the instructions contained in the notice to appear (All relevant documents should be brought to the hearing) was not allowed in evidence even though sufficient copies were available for all parties.
3. The Tribunal refused to allow cross examination of the Respondent [Mr Stock] to be made by reference to the recording which was made of an argument in which the Respondent threatened the Appellant verbally and with an iron bar before terminating his employment
4. Correspondence from the Tribunal Office indicates that the argument took place in 1973 and not in 1988."
The position this morning is that notification has been given by G P Haden that they do not intend to attend this preliminary hearing which is held for the purpose of deciding whether the Notice of Appeal raises an arguable point of law. If it does not, the appeal should be dismissed now since there is nothing which can be usefully ventilated at a full hearing before a Tribunal whose jurisdiction is limited to points of law. If it does disclose an arguable point of law, the matter will proceed to a full hearing.
We have considered the Notice of Appeal in the light of the original decision of the Tribunal and the decision on the review. We have been unable to find in any points raised on the Notice of Appeal a point of law to go forward to a full hearing.
The result is that the appeal will be dismissed. That Order is made accordingly.