BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> RPC Containers Ltd v Neville [1998] UKEAT 1246_97_2407 (24 July 1998)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1998/1246_97_2407.html
Cite as: [1998] UKEAT 1246_97_2407

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


BAILII case number: [1998] UKEAT 1246_97_2407
Appeal No. EAT/1246/97

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS
             At the Tribunal
             On 24 July 1998

Before

HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK

MRS D M PALMER

MR P R A JACQUES CBE



RPC CONTAINERS LTD APPELLANT

MR A NEVILLE RESPONDENT


Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

© Copyright 1998


    APPEARANCES

     

    For the Appellants MRS KAY SHAW
    (Personnel Consultant)
    PPC Ltd
    Enterprise House
    Great North Road
    Little Paxton
    Cambridgeshire PE19 4BQ
    For the Respondent  


     

    JUDGE PETER CLARK: This appeal, brought by the employer, RPC Containers Ltd, against a decision of the Bedford Industrial Tribunal promulgated with extended reasons on 29 July 1997, raises three arguable points of law, in our judgement, which may be formulated as follows:

    (1) was the Industrial Tribunal entitled to find, as a matter of law, that there was imported into the contract made between the company and Mr Neville (the Applicant) by custom and practice or otherwise, a term that upon dismissal by reason of redundancy, the Applicant would receive an enhanced redundancy payment calculated on the formula two weeks gross pay for each year of service?

    We think that that is the only arguable point on liability and we reject the further grounds of appeal in relation to consultation duties and the company law point which are set out in the Notice of Appeal.

    (2) If such a term was properly found, as a matter of quantum of damage flowing from the company's breach of contract in failing to make the enhanced redundancy payment, should the statutory redundancy element, which was paid by the Appellant, be deducted from the gross calculation based on the two weeks per year's service formula?
    (3) In calculating the compensatory award for unfair dismissal, ought credit to be given against the gross calculation of loss under this head, calculated by the Industrial Tribunal at £17,053.60, for the enhanced redundancy payment (excluding the statutory redundancy element) of £12,491.24, thus reducing the compensatory award from the maximum figure awarded by the Tribunal, £11,300 to £4,562.36?

    It is these three issues only which we shall allow to proceed to a full appeal hearing. All other grounds of appeal are dismissed.

    We give the following directions; this case should be listed for four hours, it is to be categorised C, skeleton arguments will be exchanged between the parties and copies lodged with this Tribunal not less that 14 days before the date fixed for the full appeal hearing. There are no other directions, in particular, there is no requirement for Chairman's Notes in this case.


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1998/1246_97_2407.html