[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Ladbroke Racing Ltd v Toner [1998] UKEAT 367_98_0105 (1 May 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1998/367_98_0105.html Cite as: [1998] UKEAT 367_98_0105, [1998] UKEAT 367_98_105

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellants	MR J BOWERS QC Halliwell Landan Solicitors Brown Street Manchester M2 2JF
For the Respondent	MISS A LEWIS (of Counsel) Free Representation Unit 1st Floor 49-51 Bedford Row London WC1R 4LR


 


JUDGE PETER CLARK: It seems that both parties are dissatisfied with this decision of an Industrial Tribunal sitting at London (North) under the Chairmanship of Mr G Flint on 18th November and 18th December 1997. The tribunal found that the applicant, Miss Toner, had been unfairly dismissed by the respondent, Ladbrokes, but had contributed to her dismissal to the extent of 50%. Compensation of £2,045.50 in respect of unfair dismissal was awarded. Extended reasons running to 1½ pages were promulgated on 14th January 1998.

It appears that the applicant was employed by the respondent as a shop manager. A bet taken at the shop was paid twice. The respondent formed the belief that the applicant was responsible for that fraud. They dismissed her.

Ladbrokes appeal against the tribunal's findings on the basis that the tribunal gave insufficient reasons to explain why and how it concluded that the respondent had carried out an inadequate investigation into the circumstances of the fraud; failed to apply the range of reasonable responses test; imposed too high a burden on the employer when considering the question of reasonableness under s. 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996; substituted its own view for that of the employer and failed to make clear findings of fact as to whether or not the applicant was responsible for the fraud, as opposed to a junior employee working in the shop, for the purposes of determining the issue of contributory fault.

By a cross-appeal the applicant appeals against the finding of 50% contribution on the grounds that she was given no opportunity to deal with the issue of contributory fault at the hearing and on the ground that the tribunal gave insufficient reasons for its finding of contribution; that such reasoning as was given rendered that finding perverse and in not making a finding as to whether or not in fact the applicant has misconducted herself. A further ground of cross-appeal in relation to the calculation of compensation is withdrawn by Miss Lewis.

We think that both the appeal and cross-appeal ought to be argued at a full hearing and we so direct. In these circumstances, the applicant withdraws her separate appeal no EAT/238/98/AM. The full appeal hearing will be listed for half a day. Category C. Skeleton arguments to be exchanged between the parties not less than 14 days before the date fixed for the hearing of the full appeal, copies of those skeleton argument to be lodged with this tribunal at the same time.

Finally, we have considered the applicant's application for parts of the Chairman's Notes of Evidence. In all the circumstances of this appeal and cross-appeal, we have reached the conclusion that it is not necessary for the disposal of the appeal for those Notes to be obtained. There are no further directions.