Appeal No. EAT/898/93

	EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
	58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

		At the Tribunal
		On 4th October 1995

	Before

	THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MORISON

	MR R D COWAN BA

	MR R JACKSON

MR D THOMPSON	APPELLANT

LEHRER MCGOVERN INT	RESPONDENTS

	Transcript of Proceedings

	JUDGMENT

	PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR R ZARA
(Solicitor)
Robert Zara & Co.
Solicitors
214 Broadgate House
Broadgate
Coventry
CV1 1UG

	MR JUSTICE MORISON:  This is a preliminary hearing to determine whether Mr Thompson has an arguable point of law in his prospective appeal against the unanimous decision of an Industrial Tribunal held at London (South) which was entered in the Register on 16th September 1993. Mr Thompson was unrepresented before the Industrial Tribunal although he is being represented before us. Although we propose to allow the appeal to go forward to a full hearing, unusually we wish to summarise the argument which he may wish to make on such an appeal.

	The short facts appear to be that, following a complaint of unfair dismissal by an exchange of letters in October 1992 a settlement agreement was reached between the parties legal representatives and the terms of it were communicated to the Industrial Tribunal so that it could issue a decision recording the withdrawal of the claim.

	The Industrial Tribunal wrote asking for formal confirmation of the position from both parties which was not forthcoming from the appellant. The settlement was not approved by ACAS. The issue between the parties is whether assuming a settlement agreement had been reached between the parties but the Industrial Tribunal had not given any effect to it, the complainant has lost his right to continue with his complaint.

	The argument for the appellant, as we see it, is that in the absence of a decision from the Tribunal the agreement does not deprive him of his right to a determination of his complaint, whatever the parties' contractual rights and remedies; that the Industrial Tribunal erred in law when answering the question posed by it in the second sentence of paragraph 9 of the decision.

	We have, and express, no view as to the merits of such an argument. But we think that there is a very short point of law to be determined at a full hearing.

	}********************{

	I would estimate that this would take what, about an hour to hear and determine? Does that sound about right to you?

	MR ROBERT ZARA: I have so little experience before this Tribunal, Sir, that I am hesitant.

	MR JUSTICE MORISON: Alright. You are quite right, it does slightly depend upon who is sitting to some extent, but I would have thought on the whole, and my colleagues would agree with me, that an hour should be enough. It is a very short point. So if that could be noted on for listing purposes.

	You will be representing Mr Thompson at the full hearing of the appeal?

	MR ROBERT ZARA: Yes.

	MR JUSTICE MORISON: The Tribunal will have the benefit, if I could call it that, of what I have just said so that will be a start. I do not think there are any further directions that I need to give.

	You want to make a point, or there is a point apparently being made about the Wages Act.

	MR ROBERT ZARA: No, I was going to abandon that point. Sir, there were some directions which might be necessary, the respondents have not as yet put in a reply. Presumably now you have granted leave to proceed, they will have to do so. Would you wish me to formally amend the Notice of Appeal to confine it to the point that you have now defined Sir.

	MR JUSTICE MORISON:  Well if that is what you think is the point.

	MR ROBERT ZARA: Yes it was the point I was proposing to argue.

	MR JUSTICE MORISON: Well in which case I would like you to amend your Notice of Appeal, could you do so within seven days to make it plain that the point is the one we have just been talking about. Yes they will have to put in an answer. But I cannot help you about when it will be listed, but not in the very near future I would have thought.