MR P BINNS v INVESTORS COMPENSATION SCHEME [2000] UKEAT 1121_99_3101
[1]APPEARANCES For the Appellant MR BEN UDUJE (of Counsel) Instructed by: Messrs Fisher Meredith Solicitors 2 Binfield Road Stockwell London SW4 6TA MR JUSTICE CHARLES : This appeal comes before us today by way of a preliminary hearing. The parties are a Mr Binns and the Investors Compensation Scheme Limited. The appeal is against the decision of an Employment Tribunal sitting at London (South), the Extended Reasons for which were sent to that parties on 21st July 1999. The decision was that the Applicant, Mr Binns was fairly dismissed and therefore his claim was unsuccessful. This morning we have been given a draft amended Notice of Appeal. We will give leave to amend the Notice of Appeal in accordance with that draft, that amendment to be made within seven days from today's date and that is given in accordance with our Practice Direction and Guidance Notes relating to preliminary hearings.[2]We are of the view, notwithstanding the point whether or not the Haddon case which has been recently decided by this Tribunal receives further comment from this Tribunal or the Court of Appeal and therefore disregarding that case, for present purposes, that this appeal raises reasonably arguable points of law;(1) as to whether the Tribunal failed to apply the statutory test correctly, thereby erring in law;(2) as to whether they fully and properly explain their reasons for reaching their decision (see for example the Meek case); and(3) as to perversity.[3]I confess that it is not clear to me whether the second ground I have mentioned is included in the draft amended Notice of Appeal handed in this morning, but in any event we will give leave to add that ground to the grounds of appeal on the basis we have already indicated.[4]We give this case Category C and a time estimate of three-quarters of a day to a day.[5]In the form sent to us there was a request for Chairman's Notes of Evidence. At present we are unpersuaded that there is a need for Chairman's Notes of Evidence. The argument on perversity would not relate to an argument that there was no evidence before the Tribunal upon which they could reach their findings of fact. The arguments arise in relation to their findings of fact. If the parties wish to raise points as to the content of the evidence given below, it is a matter for them to raise it firstly between themselves. If they cannot agree the substance of that evidence, an application would then have to be made for Chairman's Notes. At this stage we would indicate that we do not hold out a great expectation that this Tribunal would order their production in this case.