[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Bradbury v. Wright (t/a Wrights of Hatfield) [2001] UKEAT 1302_00_1603 (16 March 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/1302_00_1603.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 1302_00_1603, [2001] UKEAT 1302__1603

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR PETER CARR Representative 6 West Road Sawbridgeworth Hertfordshire CM21 OBJ


 


MR RECORDER LANGSTAFF QC

1. The present case comes before us by way of Preliminary Hearing on an Appeal from the Employment Tribunal sitting at Bedford, the Extended Reasons for which decision were promulgated on 3 October 2000.
2. We are proposing to give permission to the employee Appellant to pursue an Appeal but on limited grounds. Essentially, she has raised two principal issues of fact which she says leads to conclusions in law. The first is that she had a right to continue working at home and was required to work in the office. We think that is purely an issue of fact and upon consideration Mr Carr has withdrawn the Appeal on that basis.
3. The second essential basis of the Appeal is that she was required by her employer upon return to work, if she was to return to work, to work longer hours than she had been contracted to do before taking maternity leave.
4. We see there is an arguable case about which we shall say no more that this may have been the position and that this issue may not have been resolved by the decision of the Employment Tribunal.
5. Accordingly, we give leave to Mr Carr on behalf of Mrs Bradbury to pursue the Appeal. He has indicated to us that in the course of that Appeal he will make criticisms of the way in which the Employment Tribunal has expressed its reasoning and we have indicated to him that our preliminary view is that ancillary to the point that he wishes to pursue in respect of the hours or work.
6. There will be a revised skeleton argument concentrating on the one issue. I do not think that a revised Notice of Appeal is required, but that skeleton argument and any skeleton argument in response focussing upon the same issue should be with this Tribunal no less than two weeks prior to the hearing with any cases to be relied upon, photocopied to the Tribunal. Three copies please of each authority no less than a week prior.