Appeal No. EAT/1041/00

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 5 December 2000

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC
MR P DAWSON OBE
MR K M YOUNG CBE

MRS H COELHO	APPELLANT

BIOREX LABORATORIES LTD	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR A ELESINNIA
Representative
Instructed by
Free Representation Unit
Fourth Floor
Peer House
8-14 Verulam Street
London
WC1X 8LZ	

JUDGE D LEVY QC

1.	This is a Preliminary Hearing of an Appeal by Mrs H Coelho, (“the Appellant”) following a hearing before an Industrial Tribunal on 19 June 2000 where it held that a complaint of automatically unfair dismissal by reason of her pregnancy failed, that her complaint of sex discrimination failed, that she was unfairly dismissed by reason of redundancy and it was just and equitable that a reduction of 65% should be made, having regard the decision in Polkey -v- E A Dayton Services Ltd.

2.	Mr Elesinnia appears before us today as he did for the Appellant at the Tribunal below.  The decision of the Tribunal was promulgated on 5 July 2000.  Mr Elesinnia takes essentially three points in his submissions today.  The first is that in the decision the Tribunal appears incorrectly to have stated the burden of proof of parties in proceedings such as these, as the set out in the decision in Maund - v- Penrith District Council [1984] IRLR 24.  Having considered the submissions he has put forward we are satisfied that this point is arguable and should go to a further hearing.

3.	The second ground of appeal is regarding the reason for dismissal on a redundancy which it is submitted was against the weight of the evidence.  However, we find that having read this decision carefully that there was evidence before the Tribunal from which they could properly have concluded that there was a redundancy situation.  We look, for instance, at paragraph 8 from which it is clear that Mr Reuben who gave evidence as to what happened before there was a redundancy.  We do not think there is anything in this ground of appeal to go to a full hearing.

4.	The third ground of appeal relates to a deduction which was made from the recovery on the facts as found.  In a sense this ground may become redundant if the Appellant succeeds on her first ground of appeal.  Nonetheless it seems to us arguable that if that ground of appeal fails that the deduction which was made was wrong.  In the circumstances this ground of appeal should also go to a full hearing.

5.	Category C.  Half a day.