[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Midland Mainline v. Wade [2002] UKEAT 1382_01_2105 (21 May 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2002/1382_01_2105.html Cite as: [2002] UKEAT 1382_1_2105, [2002] UKEAT 1382_01_2105

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR T LINDEN (of Counsel) Instructed By: Engineering Employers Federation Broadway House Tothill Street London SW1H 9NQ


 


MISS RECORDER ELIZABETH SLADE QC:

1. This is the preliminary hearing of an appeal from the Decision of an Employment Tribunal promulgated on 7 September 2001 in which it decided to award a sum of just over £2000, which it described as compensation for unlawful disability discrimination.
2. The Appellant, Midland Mainline, had employed Mr Wade from August 1990 as a Senior Conductor/Train Manager until his dismissal in October 1999, following a period of absence due to ill-health.
3. The Employment Tribunal in Sheffield upheld his claim for unfair dismissal and ordered reinstatement and made an order for the payment of arrears up to the date of reinstatement, which was to be on 29 December 2000. It also made an award of £3,000 for injury to feelings. In paragraph 2 of its Decision it stated that the Applicant, Mr Wade, wished reinstatement as a remedy for unfair dismissal and, as a remedy for his claim for disability discrimination he wanted compensation for injury to feelings. The order for reinstatement was not complied with and there was a second remedies hearing.
4. So far as failing to comply with the order for reinstatement that was made, the Employment Tribunal made a basic award and an additional award. The Tribunal made an award of compensation but described it as compensation for disability discrimination, not for unfair dismissal.
5. The Appellant says that the Employment Tribunal erred in that it could not reopen the question of remedy for disability discrimination in that it had already made an award of compensation for that in the compensation award for injury to feelings.
6. In our view this appeal does raise an arguable point of law in that the Tribunal had plainly made an award for compensation for disability discrimination and we think it is strongly arguable that it was not open to the Tribunal to reopen the amount of such an award.
7. We accordingly allow this appeal to proceed to a full hearing.