[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Pattinson v. North West Water Ltd [1999] UKEAT 657_99_1907 (19 July 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/657_99_1907.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 657_99_1907

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR JOHN D HARTE MBE LL.M Solicitor & Notary Public 3 Victoria Road Harpenden Herts AL5 4EA


 


JUDGE LEVY: Mr Pattinson, the Appellant this morning, is represented by a solicitor. He appeals against the decision of an Industrial Tribunal sitting at Carlisle on 12 May 1998 and 7 July 1998. The unanimous decision of the Tribunal was that the Appellant was unfairly dismissed and they made an award of £9,284.60 to him.

1. Their decision was sent to the parties on 30 July 1998 and only summary reasons were given. Paragraph 5 of the summary reasons reads:

"The Tribunal does not make any award for reinstatement, re-engagement."

From that, the Appellant appealed by Notice of Appeal dated 12 May 1999. This Tribunal sent to him a letter pointing out that only summary reasons had been provided and the decision of William Hill Organisation v A Gravas (EAT/645/88) contained a holding that an appeal could not properly continue without extended written reasons, a holding which had been upheld by the Court of Appeal.

2. The Appellant sought extended reasons, but the Tribunal refused to give them as they were sought out of time. Indeed the Notice of Appeal itself was served well out of the permitted time for appeal. The Appellant appeals from the original decision. Mr Harte has addressed us this morning, submitting that the Tribunal has a duty to give reasons, even in summary form. However, the decision in the William Hill Organisation says quite clearly that extended written reasons have to be obtained before an appeal can go forward. We sometimes allow an appeal go forward if the basis of error can be spelt out from the summary reasons. However, we can see nothing in the summary reasons here, which could encourage us to take that course.
3. We think that in the circumstances, we have no alternative other than to dismiss the appeal at this stage. It would seem that although the employer is a big organisation, there might have been a difference between the parties arising from the matters about which the Appellant complained, which made reinstatement impossible. That is pure speculation and it is not something that we can look into now. In the circumstances we would thank Mr Harte for the assistance he has given us this morning, but we will dismiss this appeal.