Langridge v Frigoscandia [1996] UKEAT 607_96_2611

EAT
Langridge v Frigoscandia
[1996] UKEAT 607_96_2611 · 1996-11-26

JUDGE D M LEVY QC :

Mr Stephen Langridge was dismissed by his employer, Frigoscandia, on the ground of capability on 13 October 1995. He submitted an Originating Application dated 14 November 1995 to an Industrial Tribunal claiming unfair dismissal. His application was heard on 26 April 1996 and the Decision was promulgated on 2 May 1996.The unanimous decision of the Tribunal was that he was dismissed on notice on 13 October and that he was properly dismissed because of incapability. From that decision he appealed by Notice dated 7 June 1996. His appeal is subject to determination on the ex parte procedure.The facts concerning his dismissal can be summarised. Mr Langridge was employed by Frigoscandia from 1987 until 1995. He unfortunately had an industrial accident in February 1995 and was unable to return to work. His medical position was regularly reviewed; he was meant to have a "scan" prior to 13 October. It had not taken place by that date and was subject to further delay. There was a meeting which took place on 13 October between the Applicant, with his union representative present, and the employer. In its Extended Reasons, the Industrial Tribunal said of that meeting:
" ... We have seen a note of that meeting and accept it as an accurate note of what transpired. The applicant indicated to the respondent that he had nothing to report as to his medical condition and he was no further forward in returning to work. As a result the applicant was dismissed."
The Tribunal found the dismissal proper.Mr Linden puts forward two grounds of the appeal. First of all, the future prognosis was not adequately looked into; there was no medical evidence before the Tribunal which they could say that the future prognosis was investigated. Secondly, he submitted the question of alternative employment for him was not sufficiently canvassed on the date of dismissal.We turn to paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Industrial Tribunal's Extended Reasons. We find there a sufficient recital of the facts and opinion. There the Tribunal found that "there was a sufficient consultation on the matter of his health with him and his medical advisors". The Reasons found that "independent medical investigation by the company was inappropriate other than the investigations [to which it had earlier referred]; the applicant never altered his position, he claimed at all times to be unfit to do the job he was employed to do".We think that is an answer to the first submission of Mr Linden. There was a sufficient finding of facts and investigation by the Tribunal.Paragraph 6 of the Extended Reasons addresses the question of alternative employment. Again, we find when we look at the full reasons and find findings by the Tribunal, having considered the position, it came to a decision that what the employer had done was reasonable in the circumstances and not one it thought should be interfered with in any way.It seems to us that, having regard to the findings of fact, this is a quite hopeless appeal and, despite Mr Linden's eloquent submissions, it is not one we can allow to go forward.We will therefore dismiss it at this stage.