GLASS SYSTEMS (UK) LTD v MR C ALLSOPP [2001] UKEAT 177_01_0405
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
BAILII case number: [2001] UKEAT 177_01_0405Case No Appeal No. EAT/177/01Venue 58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS
Between
GLASS SYSTEMS (UK) LTDAPPELLANTMR C ALLSOPPRESPONDENT
Before
Her Honour Judge A Wakefield Mr B R Gibbs Mr D J Hodgkins CbDate 4 May 2001
[1]APPEARANCES For the Appellant MR P GREATOREX (Of Counsel) Instructed by Richards C Hall & Partners Crown Buildings 121A Sanghall Road Blacon Chester CH1 5ET JUDGE WAKEFIELD This is an Ex Parte Preliminary Hearing of an Appeal by Glass Systems (UK) Limited against the decision of an Employment Tribunal sitting at Sheffield on 4 December 2000. The decision was as to remedy only. The Employment Tribunal awarded compensation up to the date of the hearing but made no award in respect of future loss, giving as the reason for the latter aspect of the decision that:
"If it was correct that the applicant was incapable of work then it was not just and equitable that the respondent should in any way finance this incapacity beyond the level at which the state was doing so."
This was a reference to the fact that since December 1998, only one month after the dismissal of the Respondent (the Applicant in the original proceedings) he had been in receipt of incapacity benefit.[2]The Employment Tribunal gave no reason as to why this argument against compensation for the post hearing period did not also apply to the pre-hearing period, at least from the date when the Respondent started to be in receipt of incapacity benefit.[3]The Employment Tribunal also appeared to pay no regard to the fact that under the contract of employment the Respondent would during the relevant period only have been entitled, in the events which had occurred to statutory sick pay and not to full pay.[4]We consider that there may therefore have been errors of law in the approach of the Employment Tribunal and that the matter should proceed to a full hearing. That hearing may also wish to have regard to any public policy considerations which arise from the admission by the Respondent that he was "playing the system" in claiming incapacity benefits at a time when, as he asserted to the Employment Tribunal, he was in fact fully fit for normal work.