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

United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Wyndham (t/a John Wyndham Hair Care) v Miller [2002] UKEAT 1034_02_0212 (2 December 2002)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2002/1034_02_0212.html
Cite as: [2002] UKEAT 1034_02_0212, [2002] UKEAT 1034_2_212

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


BAILII case number: [2002] UKEAT 1034_02_0212
Appeal No. EAT/1034/02

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS
             At the Tribunal
             On 2 December 2002

Before

HIS HONOUR JUDGE J ALTMAN

MS J DRAKE

MRS A GALLICO



JOHN WYNDHAM T/A JOHN WYNDHAM HAIR CARE APPELLANT

MISS K MILLER RESPONDENT


Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING


    APPEARANCES

     

    For the Appellant MR JOEL DONOVAN
    (of Counsel)
    Appearing under the
    Employment Law
    Appeal Advice Scheme
       


     

    HIS HONOUR JUDGE J ALTMAN

  1. On this preliminary hearing to determine if there are points of law properly arguable in full before the Employment Appeal Tribunal, there are two points of appeal which we permit to go forward to a full hearing; however we do so with some reservations, and that is why we are giving a short judgment.
  2. The first ground is that the Tribunal were effectively inconsistent with their own reasoning, when, having held that a fair procedure would have led to dismissal in two weeks, the Tribunal then awarded a sum of money for loss of statutory rights, as part of the compensatory award, and that argument, it seems to us, speaks for itself.
  3. On the second ground, the Employment Tribunal found unfairness in the procedure adopted by the employer in a number of respects, but a major one was in relation to the absence of an appeal hearing, which they found in spite of the employer being small, could nonetheless have been explored.
  4. We were doubtful if that really raised an issue of law, but having been referred to Tiptools Ltd -v- Curtis [1973] IRLR 276, where that Court held that the need for an appeal did not exist effectively in small companies or businesses, it seems to us that an arguable point of law arises.
  5. It may be that times have moved on, and the current ACAS Code and the views of Courts and Tribunals as to proper practice, fall to be taken into consideration and that it is time for that case to be reviewed, but the proper place for that is at a full hearing, and that is why this matter will proceed to a full hearing, to be listed for one hour in Category C, automatic directions will apply, and there will be a transcript of this judgment.


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2002/1034_02_0212.html