[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Miriki v. The General Council of The Bar [1999] UKEAT 768_99_2411 (24 November 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/768_99_2411.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 768_99_2411

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	Mrs Manley (of Counsel) Instructed by Messrs Deighton Guedalla Solicitors Top Floor 30-31 Islington Green London N1 8DU
For the Respondent


 


JUDGE D PUGSLEY: In this case we have had the benefit of hearing Ms Manley on behalf of the Appellant who seeks to persuade us that there are arguable grounds of law with her amended letters of appeal she points at ground 2 to paragraph 7 at page five of the decision.

Another point which occurred to us whether we should say in these circumstances that the selection was fair or whether we should say that, because of the absence of consultation, we should consider the dismissal to be unfair but that, marking the chance, in accordance with the principles of Polkey, we would mean that since it was inevitable that the Applicant should be selected there would be a very high percentage reduction, if not 100%, from any compensation which would be awarded to the Applicant. Again, after considerable discussion, we have come to the conclusion that we should say that the selection of the applicant for redundancy was fair.

1. We accept that there is an arguable misdirection of law, in that the Tribunal is failing to separate the question of fairness or otherwise the dismissal from any question of compensation that might arise.
2. We are also concerned that in paragraph 8, as Ms Manley has submitted to us, anyone reading that paragraph would not know in broad terms what evidence the Tribunal accepted or what evidence it rejected and why it chose not to draw any inferences. We accept that that is the paragraph that does contain arguable points along those lines and Ms Manley in place of the grounds 4 and 5 of the amended Notice of Appeal put in additional grounds 1,2 and 3 which are manuscript written. We accept they do contain arguable grounds of law. We therefore allow the appeal to proceed on ground 2 only of the amended Notice of Appeal and the further subsequent amendments which replace the old paragraphs 4 and 5 of the amended grounds.