[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Taylor v. Barkland (UK) Ltd [2002] UKEAT 0024_02_1012 (10 December 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2002/0024_02_1012.html Cite as: [2002] UKEAT 0024_02_1012, [2002] UKEAT 24_2_1012

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

APPEARANCES

 

 

For the Appellant	Mr D Bartos, Advocate Instructed by- Messrs Cameron Macaulay Solicitors 319 Edinburgh House Princes Square EAST KILBRIDE G74 1LJ
For the Respondents	No Appearance Nor Representation


 


LORD JOHNSTON:

1. This is a further appeal to this Tribunal from a decision of the Employment Tribunal subsequent to being asked by us to reconsider the question of compensation as determined in its original decision.
2. Mr Bartos, Advocate, appeared before us, there being no appearance for the respondents, to argue that the Tribunal had once again misdirected itself on questions of law with regard to compensation. He sought leave to add an additional ground of appeal to the effect, that, the Tribunal had failed to consider the issue of, if, or when, the appellant was ever likely to obtain employment at a level of salary comparable to that enjoyed by her in the employment of the respondents. We were prepared to allow this, having regard to the way we consider the matter will have to be handled.
3. Mr Bartos further submitted that the Tribunal had based its decision on some conclusion relating to the future prospects of the appellant in her present employment without making any findings in fact to that effect.
4. It is sufficient for us to say at this stage that we are entirely satisfied that there is force in both these submissions and that the Employment Tribunal has once again fallen into error. There is a real risk of an injustice being perpetrated upon the appellant.
5. The question arises as to what can be done about this matter. We consider that the existing Employment Tribunal, having had now, two chances to get matters right, has exhausted its remit and it would not be appropriate to remit the matter back to them for the third time. On the other hand, the issue cannot stand on its present basis.
6. In these circumstances we intimated to Mr Bartos that we were prepared to allow this appeal and remit the matter back to a freshly constituted Tribunal to determine the question of compensation, whether against the background of the facts found by the Tribunal in the original hearing, or in respect of new evidence, or both.
7. We shall accordingly so order.