Appeal No.	 EAT/973/99

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 23 November 1999

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE D PUGSLEY
LORD DAVIES OF COITY CBE
MR J R RIVERS

MS A COLE	APPELLANT

LONDON BOROUGH OF HACKNEY	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	Mr R Lewis (Solicitor)
Messrs Bindman & Partners
Solicitors
275 Gray's Inn Road
London WC1X 8QF	

JUDGE PUGSLEY:
1	In this case we are grateful to the argument received from the Appellant’s solicitor, Mr Lewis, who has been very open with us in saying that there is a limit to the help he can give, in the sense that he did not appear below and it is not easy to pick up the themes.  

2	Did the Tribunal identify the correct reason for dismissal?  We consider it is arguable that the proper reason was, as Mr Lewis has submitted, redundancy.  It is a purely academic error?  We do not think it is, in the sense that, we think that had the Tribunal said it was redundancy, if that is on a true construction of what it was, they would have perhaps given greater weight to considering what the proceedures were that led Ms Cole to take the severance package.  

3	It often happens in a redundancy situation that volunteers are called for.  In such cases it is a free standing and totally independent decision of people whether they apply and indeed their application may not be successful because the employer may wish to retain their services.  That is not quite the situation here.  There was, as the Tribunal decision makes clear, information conveyed to the Applicant about her likelihood of getting further employment.  In those situations one thinks that there must be some review by the Tribunal and finding of fact as to the fairness of the way in which that interview was conducted.  This is a different situation from the one that pertains where volunteers are called for, but no view is put to them as to whether they will or will not be successful in the redundancy process.  In those circumstances we consider there are arguable grounds.  

4	Having considered the matter with Mr Lewis it is common ground that leave is given to argue grounds D, E, G and H of paragraph 7 of the Grounds of Appeal.  The other matters are really all subsidiary to that. 
5	The case should be category C with half day time estimate.