Cruickshank v London Borough Of Richmond [1997] UKEAT 483_97_0407

EAT

Cruickshank v London Borough Of Richmond

[1997] UKEAT 483_97_0407 · 1997-07-04

MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT) : We have been persuaded, just, that there are two arguable points fit for hearing before a full tribunal.

The first is whether the Industrial Tribunal have correctly approached the question of reinstatement and whether it can be said that in paragraph 5 they have adequately dealt with reinstatement, so that the employee knows why he has lost on that issue.

The second point relates to the finding by the Industrial Tribunal that an Order for re-engagement was not practicable, having regard to the sentence which reads:

"5. ... The allegations made by the Applicant in correspondence, and repeated at the hearing, after appropriate advice and caution by the Chairman, leave the Tribunal to conclude that he does not have sufficient trust and confidence in his managers. In consequence thereof working relationships would be seriously impaired if he were to be re-engaged."

Having regard to those two sentences, we can see an argument which is worth consideration as to the extent to which an Industrial Tribunal should take into account what might be described as "aggravation during litigation" as being evidence that it would not be practicable for an employer to comply with an Order for re-employment.

[Mr Burns, I would hope that you would feel able to redraft, with Mr Cruickshank's consent, the Notice of Appeal to raise those two points specifically, and confine the Notice of Appeal to those two points. We are not prepared to allow any other point to be argued at the full hearing of the appeal. You have synthesised the two points which are available, and we would like to you to amend the Notice of Appeal. We will give you 14 days in which to serve an amended Notice of Appeal, making those two points and those two only. We do not think that this is a case where Notes of Evidence would be required.]