[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Mundell v Knoll Pharmaceuticals [1997] UKEAT 811_96_2901 (29 January 1997) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1997/811_96_2901.html Cite as: [1997] UKEAT 811_96_2901

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	APPELLANT IN PERSON


 


MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): We are allowing this Preliminary Hearing to go to a full hearing for the following reasons. Firstly Mr Mundell has indicated that there are grounds for him making a complaint about the way he was dealt with at the Industrial Tribunal, particularly as to the way he was not permitted to give evidence on his own behalf. Secondly, it seems to us that he might wish to argue that the question of what was the real reason for his dismissal had never been canvassed at the hearing or properly dealt with by the Tribunal.

It is Mr Mundell's contention that he had applied for voluntary redundancy which would have been of benefit financially to him. There was a family background to the dispute with Mr Dillon which immediately gave rise to his dismissal and there is a question as to whether the Tribunal properly took those matters into account, assuming that they were aware of them. Thirdly, there is a question as to the structure of the Tribunal's hearing as to whether they have in any way in their decision, referred to any evidence that was presented to them, or whether they have simply, if you will, concentrated on what the employers did or did not do in their investigation of the alleged misconduct.

These are matters which we think in all fairness to Mr Mundell are required to be investigated at a full hearing, but we give him a warning that he should not be hopeful as to the ultimate outcome of his appeal because it is difficult as this Tribunal has pointed out, to construct points of law against a decision of unfair dismissal. We would list this as a Category C case but give a further direction that it should, if possible, be listed before Judge Clark and his colleagues for a hearing. It seems to us to be a matter which is best dealt with by that particular Judge.

We ask for the Chairman's Notes in this case. We think that they may be important. I should point out to you Mr Mundell that as we have given you leave, subject to the condition that I have referred to, you will be entitled to apply for Legal Aid. Your solicitor will advise you about that and you may therefore be entitled to the benefit of legal representation at the hearing before the EAT on Legal Aid if you qualify for it.