[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Graham v Hoselock Ltd [1998] UKEAT 1153_97_2101 (21 January 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1998/1153_97_2101.html Cite as: [1998] UKEAT 1153_97_2101

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR T LINDEN (Of Counsel) Messrs Pattinson & Brewer Solicitors 30 Great James Street London WC1N 3HA


 


MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): The purpose of this hearing is to determine whether there is an arguable point of law in relation to an appeal against an Industrial Tribunal decision, promulgated on 18 August 1997. By that decision the Industrial Tribunal concluded that an employee who was alleging that he had been selected for redundancy on the grounds of his trade union activities and was making such a complaint, was not entitled to interim relief because of the wording of Section 161(1) of the 1992 Act.

Mr Linden, on behalf of the Applicant, says that although on a strict construction of the legislation it might appear that that was a conclusion which was correct, there is an important issue which needs to be resolved. He says that to take a narrow construction of the statute would be to produce a result which was flawed, because there is no real distinction between a dismissal for trade union activities on the one hand and a dismissal in a redundancy context by reason of trade union activities, on the other.

One of the difficulties of this case is that having ruled on the application for interim relief, the Tribunal then went on to hear the merits of the complaint. They rejected Mr Graham's complaint that he had been picked on because of his trade union membership or activities. To that extent, the appeal may appear to be somewhat moot or academic. However, we have been persuaded by Mr Linden that it would be nonetheless appropriate to allow this matter to go ahead, but I indicated to him in the course of argument, and he fully understands the position, that if at a full hearing we were persuaded by the employers that it was quite unreasonable to have maintained this appeal, then we will, despite allowing it through at this preliminary stage, be prepared to consider an application for costs on its merits.

This is a short point and unlikely to take more than two hours to dispose of. I would like to retain it for myself. Skeleton Arguments to be produced in the normal way: no need for Notes of Evidence; and no other directions.