[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Hackett v. Vaw Motorcast Ltd [2001] UKEAT 10_00_2201 (22 January 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/10_00_2201.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 10_00_2201, [2001] UKEAT 10__2201

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	No appearance or representation by or on behalf of the Appellant
For the Respondents	No appearance or representation by or on behalf of the Respondents


 


JUDGE COLLINS CBE

1. This appeal has followed a regrettable course. On 8 March 2000, I gave judgment on the preliminary hearing of this appeal. The effect was that the Appellant was given the right to a full hearing on one point only, which is that the Tribunal failed to investigate the question of Mr Hackett's pension rights of their own motion, which would have given rise to a financial award had they done so.
2. The preliminary hearing was attended by the Respondents, because there was a cross-appeal and in the judgment which I gave on that occasion on behalf of the Tribunal on both the appeal and the cross-appeal, I indicated:

"it is plainly a case where the parties may wish to consider negotiations. Mr Graham will be aware of the authorities, he will be in a position to obtain instructions, which he does not have at the moment, about the quantum of any lost rights. We would certainly hope that the parties will be able to come to a settlement of the appeal in relation to loss of pension rights without the matter having to come forward for a full hearing."

3. In those circumstances, it is a matter of very great regret that it is not until last week that the Respondents were prepared to accept that there was a valid appeal on the question of pension rights, in relation to which the case should be remitted to the Tribunal. We make no bones about it: had that concession not been made, and the Appellant had had to attend here by solicitor and Counsel for an order, it is almost inevitable that we would have ordered the Respondents to pay the whole or part of the costs, and it is a matter for concern that the matter has drifted on for so long, without Mr Hackett knowing what his position is.
4. The law is set out in decisions of this Tribunal in Tidman v Aveling Marshall Ltd [1977] IRLR 219 and Langston v Cranfield University [1998] IRLR 172. The Tribunal has an independent obligation to investigate possible claims of financial loss, including pension rights. We allow the appeal, and remit the case to the Tribunal for establishment of the quantum of the Appellant's loss of pension rights and we once again reiterate our hope that this matter will be settled very quickly, without the necessity for a further hearing.