[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Kendrick v. Wirral Hospital NHS Trust [2000] UKEAT 299_00_2806 (28 June 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/299_00_2806.html Cite as: [2000] UKEAT 299__2806, [2000] UKEAT 299_00_2806

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	THE APPELLANT IS NEITHER PRESENT NOR REPRESENTED.


 


JUDGE J ALTMAN:

1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Employment Tribunal at Liverpool on 4 October 1999 and comes before us by way of preliminary hearing, to determine if there is a point of law capable of argument in full before the Employment Appeal Tribunal. The issue which the appeal raises is whether, what is stated to be an oral agreement under the auspices of the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service, entered into in advance of the preparation of what is called a COT 3 form, is an enforceable contract notwithstanding that it is not reduced to writing, in accordance with Gilbert v Kembridge Fibres Ltd [1984] IRLR 52.
2. No one attended on this hearing. The Appellant was telephoned and it appears that he has recently been discharged from hospital and was relying upon Mr Strang as his representative. Eventually Mr Strang was contacted who conceded that he knew about today's hearing, apologised for his absence but was in another Tribunal until late last night, which explained why he had not contacted the Employment Appeal Tribunal. He had wanted to speak to the Appellant, following his discharge from hospital. Mr Strang, on behalf of the Appellant asked us to adjourn this hearing.
3. In those circumstances, we have determined to adjourn this preliminary hearing to another occasion because it is clear that, on the face of the material before us, there are serious issues of which the Appeal Tribunal must be persuaded, if they are to identify a point of law such as to merit a hearing in full. Therefore, it would be unjust if the matter were dismissed without giving Mr Kendrick and his representative an opportunity to argue those points. Accordingly, this matter will be adjourned to be relisted for preliminary hearing at a later date.