[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> BG Plc v. O'Brien [1999] UKEAT 1063_99_0912 (9 December 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/1063_99_0912.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 1063_99_912, [1999] UKEAT 1063_99_0912

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR R LEIPER (of Counsel)


 


HIS HONOUR JUDGE D PUGSLEY

1. This is an appeal against a majority decision at the Southampton Employment Tribunal with the Chairman presenting that BG Plc was in breach of Mr O'Brian's contract of employment by failing to consider him and subsequently offer him the enhanced contractual redundancy payment referred to in BG's document "Financial Packages 1996-2002".
2. Mr Leiper made what he thought was a jury point that the Chairman dissented, I am bound to say together with other members of the Tribunal, I think, the fact that it was a Chairman who dissented does not add to the cogency of the appeal. The Industrial members may have far greater experience than a Chairman, not only as to the realities of Industrial working life but as members on this Tribunal.
3. The reality is that there are clear arguable grounds. Mr Leiper is far too professional to assume the appeal will succeed. The finding of the majority was the Respondents had failed to offer the Applicant a revised contract of employment. Their failure to do so is in breach of their implied duty of trust and confidence, and in particular their duty to treat employees in a fair and even handed manner. The majority say the Respondents should not be permitted to rely upon their own breach of contract. The ambit of the term of mutual trust and confidence is one that in a series of cases has exercised both Courts and Tribunals.
4. The grounds of appeal set out in 2,3,4 & 5 are in our view arguable. Paragraph 4 is more sort of gloss on ground of appeal 3, setting out the citation the University of Nottingham-v-Eyett [1999] IRLR 87 per Hart J. We consider that this is an important matter, not only to the individuals concerned, but also to the wider public. We think this is a Category B case and give it a day time estimate.