Appeal No. EAT/1147/01

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 13 March 2002

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE HOLLAND
MR B V FITZGERALD MBE
MR B GIBBS

MR P WILDE	APPELLANT

PURE FISHING (UK) LTD	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR D FLOOD
(of Counsel)
Instructed By:
Messrs Poole Alcock
Solicitors
238 - 240 Edleston Road
Crewe
Cheshire
CW2 7EH	
For the Respondent	NO APPEARANCE OR
REPRESENTATION BY
OR ON BEHALF OF THE
RESPONDENT	

MR JUSTICE HOLLAND:
1.	This matter is listed before us today by way of a preliminary hearing.  It is our task to decide whether the Notice of Appeal supported by Mr Flood’s skeleton argument raises matters which would justify adjournment and an inter-partes hearing.  In our judgment, there are matters that merit that hearing, whilst we appreciate that it could be said and no doubt will be said that this was a decision as to fact by an industrial jury.  

2.	We are particularly concerned that there is no evidence in the extended reasons that the Tribunal reminded itself that as at July 2000 the Applicant was a person with the status of one who had been dismissed for misconduct.  It was with that status that he was trying to obtain alternative employment and it was not until May 2001 that he was in a position to demonstrate the world at large that he had been wrongfully dismissed.  

3.	Those are arguably matters to be taken into account by a properly directed jury and on the face of it they may not have been considered at all.  Though that is the point that has particularly appealed to us today, we are not minded to exclude the other points taken by Mr Flood in his Notice of Appeal, they too will be available to him at the adjourned hearing.  In the meantime, first, Mr Flood applies to us for leave to amend the Notice of Appeal, that leave we give.  The period of time we give for that exercise is 14 days.

4.	Turning to the preparation for the hearing, this is a case in which as we see it, there could be an advantage in sight of the Chairman’s notes and we therefore would request the Chairman to provide a transcript of his notes.  Turning finally to the hearing itself, Category C and it looks on the face of it to be a 2 hour case.  We further direct an exchange of skeleton arguments, not less than 14 days before the substantive hearing.