BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Board v. Superdrug Stores Plc [2001] UKEAT 1230_00_2303 (23 March 2001)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/1230_00_2303.html
Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 1230__2303, [2001] UKEAT 1230_00_2303

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


BAILII case number: [2001] UKEAT 1230_00_2303
Appeal No. EAT/1230/00

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS
             At the Tribunal
             On 23 March 2001

Before

MR RECORDER LANGSTAFF QC

MISS A MACKIE OBE

MR P M SMITH



MS R BOARD APPELLANT

SUPERDRUG STORES PLC RESPONDENT


Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

© Copyright 2001


    APPEARANCES

     

    For the Appellant NO APPEARANCE OR
    REPRESENTATION
    BY OR ON BEHALF OF
    THE APPELLANT
       


     

    MR RECORDER LANGSTAFF

  1. This matter comes before us by way of a Preliminary Hearing from the London Central Employment Tribunal in a decision which was promulgated on 6 September 2000. That date is important for reasons I shall come to.
  2. The Appellant has not been represented nor is present this morning but we have considered her appeal on paper to see whether, we think, there is an arguable point of law which should go forward to a Full Hearing. We think there is. It is essentially this. On 8 September 2000 she wrote in a letter which may well have been addressed to this Tribunal, because it was dated as received here on 18 September 2000, to ask that there be a re-hearing. She had not attended the hearing before the Tribunal and on that basis her case had been dismissed having considered what evidence there was.
  3. The Rules provide that an application for a review must be made within 14 days of the date of the decision made to the Secretary of the Tribunals. We think it is an arguable question as to whether a letter here, to this Tribunal, made within the 14 days seeking essentially a review, complies with those regulations and we think that is a point for which there ought to be a full argument.
  4. For those reasons we think there is an appeal, limited to that procedural ground. We think it is an appeal which is likely to take no more than one hour to hear and we think that it should be listed in category B. We would ask that the Appellant provide any further observations she may have in writing no less than a week before the hearing and that the Respondent provide a skeleton argument within the same time scale, making reference to any cases or authorities which it is considered would help the disposition of the appeal. A chronology would also be of assistance if that could be provided.


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/1230_00_2303.html