TETROSYL LIMITED v MR B J DELARGY [2001] UKEAT 0305_01_2606
[1]APPEARANCES For the Appellant MR MORT (Solicitor) Tetrosyl Limited Walmersley Bury Lancashire BL9 6RE HIS HONOUR JUDGE J ALTMAN This is an appeal from the decision of the Employment Tribunal sitting in Manchester on 18 and 19 December 2000. It comes before us by way of Preliminary Hearing to determine whether or not there is a point of law arguable in full before the Employment Appeal Tribunal. On the face of the Employment Tribunal decision there are very careful findings of fact and a very careful analysis in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the defects found by the Employment Tribunal in the procedure for dismissal. Indeed, the points raised and the defects pointed out are, within the understanding of this Tribunal, the standard sort of things that one would find in any normal procedure.[2]However, on the face of it, it does seem to us that it is arguable that the way in which the Tribunal expressed itself in paragraph 7 does give rise to an argument that the Tribunal substituted its own view. Much of what is set out in paragraph 7 consists of findings of fact, which the Employment Tribunal was no doubt entitled to make, of its own motion, as being the findings of fact upon which to base their assessment as to whether or not the dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. However, without wishing to indicate one way or the other whether we thought that there was anything fair about the dismissal or unfair about it, it does seem to us that the way in which the Tribunal expressed itself is capable of argument. On that sole ground this matter will proceed to a Full Hearing. It will be listed for ½ a day in category C; skeleton arguments to be provided not less than 14 days before the hearing. The Notice of Appeal sets out a large number of grounds. We direct that an amended Notice be prepared under the heading that the Employment Tribunal set out its own views wrongly and identifying the particular passages relied upon.