[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Pirelli Cables Ltd v Guerard [2004] UKEAT 0254_04_1609 (16 September 2004) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2004/0254_04_1609.html Cite as: [2004] UKEAT 254_4_1609, [2004] UKEAT 0254_04_1609

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR THOMAS LINDEN (of Counsel) Instructed by: Messrs Blake Lapthorne Linnell Solicitors Kings Court 21 Brunswick Place Southampton SO15 2AO
For the Respondent	No Appearance or Representation By or on Behalf of the Appellant

SUMMARY

Unfair Dismissal

Appeal allowed without resistance on question of remedy.


 


HIS HONOUR JUDGE McMULLEN QC

1. This is an appeal by Pirelli Cables against a decision on remedy of a tribunal, sitting at Southampton, which was reserved and registered with Extended Reasons on 19 January 2004. The Decision was to award sums of money, by way of compensation, to the Applicant in those proceedings. The Respondent Pirelli, raises a number of issues and a Notice of Appeal. The Respondent's answer, given on behalf of the Applicant, is not to oppose the substantive grounds, but he reserves his position in relation to what might be described as an issue on contribution.
2. It seems to us that Mr Linden is right; if we were to allow the appeal on his primary, substantive grounds, the Applicant's position would not be affected in relation to the ground which he reserves.
3. In accordance with the Practice Direction, paragraph 15, an appeal can be allowed by consent. In our judgement, what has happened in this case is equivalent to allowing the appeal by consent, although there is a difference in form in that the appeal is essentially not resisted. Lest there be any doubt about that, we are prepared to give a judgment which accepts the arguments put forward by Mr Linden in his Notice of Appeal and his Grounds of Appeal, which can be incorporated by reference only into this judgment.
4. The appeal therefore will be allowed, and the originating application will be referred to a freshly constituted employment tribunal to determine the issue of remedy. We would have hoped to have resolved this matter a little earlier, because on Tuesday I asked our Case Manager to see if the Applicant's position could be made more clear than it has been on the papers, in order to avoid any unnecessary attendance. Sadly, the Applicant has not been able to do that, due, we think, to commitments of his solicitor in other tribunals this week.
5. Anyway, we are satisfied that the material put before us gives grounds for setting aside this decision as not opposed by the Applicant, and we will do that. We will give case management directions, which include: the Applicant to produce a schedule of loss, by 30 September, and 14 days thereafter, the Respondents will produce a schedule in response. Meanwhile, the Applicant will apply for a one day hearing on remedy before the Tribunal.
6. We have been heartened to hear that negotiations are on course to try and resolve this essentially monetary matter, and we would hope that the parties will focus their attention upon those negotiations at an early date, in order, if possible, to avoid wither further preparations on the case or a further hearing. ACAS is of course on hand now that this case is back in the Employment Tribunal.
7. We would like to thank Mr Linden for turning up this morning and being prepared to make the arguments which it has been unnecessary for him to do, since their correctness shines through.